New IPR Bond

Customs and Border Protection has established a new continuous bond category for intellectual property rights holders to use to secure the release of samples of allegedly infringing merchandise. This will simplify the process of getting samples for analysis for companies that often work with CBP to interdict counterfeits or infringing merchandise. Rights holders can also use a single transaction bond, if they prefer.

Here is the notice from Customs, which includes an contact number for more information.

While we are talking IPR, Customs has also finally republished the Informed Compliance Publication on CBP Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. All this activity is probably evidence of Customs' continuing focus on IPR enforcement.

Here is a nagging question I have. Does anyone in Customs represent the innocent legitimate importer in enforcement policy. The reason I ask is that I have seen clients with legitimate, non-infringing merchandise suffer very serious expense and delays trying to secure the release of merchandise. I understand that the the rights holders a legally entitled to protection and I am also very aware of the economic contribution intangible property makes to the U.S. economy. We should not allow free riders and criminals to hijack a brand. But, the innocent party that buys legitimate merchandise through parallel, unauthorized channels can rarely produce a chain of documentation back to the authorized producer. Neither the producer nor the rights holder has any interest, under the current system, in facilitating that importation. So the importer is stuck.

For now, the solution for the importer is to make sure the purchase agreement is contingent upon release of the merchandise and includes an indemnification for losses due to defending infringement claims, CBP penalties, storage expenses, etc. Of course, the guy selling NFL jerseys from a truck in Tijuana or shampoo from a card table in Red Square in Moscow is unlikely to agree to those terms.

Comments

Peter Quinter said…
Larry,


With you 100% regarding nonauthorized, yet legitimate importers of genuine merchandise being harassed by CBP.

Peter Quinter
May 11, 2011, 4:34:00 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