In Rem Action: U.S. v. Flash Drives



In law, there are two kinds of civil actions. The usual case is brought "in personam," meaning it is against a person. This is the usual So-and-So v. So-and-So kind of case in which the plaintiff claims the defendant did something wrong. Other actions are "in rem," meaning against the thing. In these cases, the very existence of the thing is the problem and it doesn't matter all that much who is at fault or who owns them (although the owner can show up and put on a defense for the stuff). In law school, the most famous in rem cases have to do with the seizure of pornographic films. They (the cases, not the films) have titles like "U.S. v. 250 Reels of Motion Picture Film."

This is relevant here because of the recent filing of U.S. v. 3,000 Microsoft Flash Drives in the U.S. District Court in Alaska. This was reported in Information Week, although the story appears to have been taken down (the link is to the Google cache). The flash drives include an unauthorized Microsoft Windows logo and were seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. CBP appears to be focusing on high-tech counterfeiting as there was also a recent case on counterfeit keyboards.

The Information Week article makes the interesting point about the diminishing value of the merchandise, which was seized in July of 2007. Because of the rapid advances in chip production technology, the seized flash drives are worth less every day. That, of course, raises the question of whether it is worthwhile to fight this case at all? It seems that the issue of infringement should be pretty clear unless the importer has some heretofore unproduced license to import products bearing Microsoft trademarks. It seems that if such a document existed, it would have been produced by now.

So, what is left? Is there an argument that the Windows logo is necessary to communicate compatibility with the OS? Not likely as the words "Microsoft Windows" with a prominent trademark disclaimer would have accomplished that. Further, a quick look at the six flash drives in my desk draw reveals that not one is decorated with a Windows logo.

Another alternative is proving that the merchandise was legally produced and is permitted entry to the U.S. as gray-market merchandise. We've discussed that before. That is also a tough, though not impossible, row to hoe.

I suspect, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Alaska is about to have a life-time supply of flash drives.

Comments

Branded USB Sticks said…
What an quality post you have shared with us. Even I like the way you have presented your post man.
May 20, 2010, 12:32:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more