American Circuit Breaker Corporation, a New York Corporation v. Oregon Breakers Inc., an Oregon Corporation Stephen Reames, an Oregon Resident

Good Law
406 F.3d 577·2005 WL 937817·27 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1602·74 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1607·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7051
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 25, 200503-35375California4,309 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

New subjects have generated more ink and consternation in the trademark arena in recent years than the topic of parallel imports/gray market goods. In general terms, a gray market good, often referred to as a parallel import, is “[a] foreign-manufactured good, bearing a valid United States trademark, that is imported without the consent of the United States trademark holder.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 285 , 108 S.Ct. 1811 , 100 L.Ed.2d 313 (1988). Indeed, the debate is not a new one, as Congress jumped on the bandwagon in the early 1900s to provide United States trademark holders a remedy under the Tariff Act against importation of genuine goods bearing a United States trademark. Tariff Act of 1922 § 526, 42 Stat. 975 (later reenacted in identical form as Tariff Act of 1930 § 526, 19 U.S.C. § 1526 ). That legislation, amended over the years, did not quell the confusion and uncertainty, especially regarding the relationship between infringement claims under the Lanham Act and claims under the Tariff Act.

It is no surprise then that the parties to this dispute have diametrically opposed views as to how the case should be analyzed. At issue is the sale in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.