Delevopments on the IPR Front

Customs and Border Protection, as you likely know, plays an important role in enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights at the border. CBP can seize merchandise that infringes a U.S. copyright or trademark and can enforce a U.S. International Trade Commission exclusion order for patents or other rights.


What you may not know, is that CBP can include intellectual property issues in audits of importers. So, in additional to having your classification, value, marking, and rate of duty ducks in a row, you also need to be certain that you have the right to import merchandise that bears a U.S. trademark or is covered by a U.S. copyright. You may not think this is a common occurrence but it is. Branded merchandise is almost always the subject of trademark protection. Granted, for CBP to engage in enforcement the mark must be recorded with Customs, but that is also very common. If you are importing goods bearing a trademark, check CBP's online IPR search and check whether the trademark is recorded. The same goes for copyrighted works such as software, movies, music, and art work. Copyright enforcement is less common because Customs only gets involved where the work is "pirated."


I'm thinking about this because CBP just published its Focused Assessment audit standards for intellectual property issues. That document is here. The document gives helpful advice regarding best practices and manager responsibilities for importers.

On a related front, rights holders often complain that it is hard to get Customs to act to protect their interests. In response, Customs has issued a document with the clever title How to get IPR Border Enforcement Assistance. The upshot is that CBP has set up a new e-mail address for contacts relating to IPR enforcement. That address is: hqiprbranch@dhs.gov. The IPR BRANCH may also be reached by telephone at (202) 572-8710.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more