My Point Exactly

For the past couple years, I have been on the record at numerous events and in numerous publications with various ideas for how to make tariff classification litigation more efficient and, therefore, more useful for importers. There are several good ideas floating around about this. Not the least of which is the Court of International Trade's recently announced pilot program for a "small claims" process. Others have done the lion's share of the work on that.

My big idea has been to promote early efforts to resolve the legal questions about how to interpret the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. My thought is that if everyone is reading the tariff the same way, the parties will know what facts matter and whether there is a real dispute. With the fact disputes eliminated or narrowed down, discovery can be focused and the parties can get to the controlling issues quickly. It's even possible that, once the parties know the meaning of the tariff terms, cases will be stipulated or settled.

I got here by analogizing tariff classification disputes to patent infringement cases. In a patent case, the judge interprets the patent claims following what's known as a Markman hearing. You can read all about that here, in the Brooklyn Journal of International Law.

Along comes Chemtall, Inc. v. United States, from the Court of International Trade to help me make my case. Chemtall is a complicated case involving more chemistry than I have seen since high school. The opinion is full of helpful diagrams of chemical structures. The product at issue is acrylamide tertiary butyl sulfonic acid or ATBS, for short. The classification question is whether that product is an amide. Since the structure of the produce is well understood, the only question is the definition of an amide.

According to the Explanatory Notes, an "amide" is a compound with an amide functional group and either hydrogen, alkyl radicals, or aryl radicals.

Plaintiff's position in this case is that "many" sources do not explicitly limit the definition of "amide" to those compounds with these functional groups and, therefore, it is possible to substitute a different structure. But, the Explanatory Notes provide a specific definition, which is going to be pretty persuasive. Further, the only source of support for this theory was the plaintiff's expert. Note that the expert is an expert in chemistry, not in interpreting the law. That is what judges are for.

The Court did not agree to expand the definition and applied the Explanatory Notes. That resulted in a win for Customs and Border Protection.

If the parties knew that definition early in the case, would it have taken three years to resolve the matter? Possibly, I was not involved and do not know what disputes might have been raised and resolved along the way.

Plaintiff had some other arguments about whether the product was derivative and the meaning of the 10-digit statistical suffix. And, I certainly do not pretend to understand the chemistry. The great thing about being a lawyer is that I am confident I could understand it if and when it became necessary. That is not today.

What I find fascinating about this case is that THERE WERE NO FACTS IN DISPUTE. The only issue was how to read the tariff language. Much of the 13-page opinion was a careful explanation of the process of tariff classification, the standard of judicial review, and the nature of the product. The value of the expert testimony was a minimal consideration.

When there are no material facts in dispute, cases get decided on motions for summary judgment. That is how the majority of classification cases are resolved. If that is the case, doesn't it make sense to identify the question of law up front, resolve it, and then decide whether it makes sense to continue to pursue the case? If the case goes forward, the relevant facts should be fairly well known, making discovery more focused and the whole process more efficient.

Something like that is supposed to happen in patent cases through Markman hearings and it makes sense to me to try something like that in the Court of International Trade. People in the trade have started talking about applying Markman in tariff cases, which is a good thing. On the other hand, Markman was a patent case and has not direct relevance here. Consequently, I hereby declare that if and when this process takes hold in customs litigation, it be called a "Friedman hearing."

JBLU: A Trademark is a Trademark

Remember JBLU, Inc. v. United States? It was an interesting Court of International Trade decision involving whether the use of a geographic terms in a trademark required a country of origin marking in close proximity when the trademark was not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

What is at issue here is 19 CFR §§ 134.46 and 134.47. Under § 134.46, when a geographic location is indicated on an imported article or its container, and that indication may mislead the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin, then the article must also be marked with it correct country of origin in close proximity. Section 134.47 provides a more lenient rule where the geographical indication is part of a trademark or trade name.

According to the Court of International Trade, without a registration or a pending application, the use of the geographic indicator triggers the more strict requirement for a close-by country of origin marking. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has weighed in and basically said, "You've got to be kidding me."

The Federal Circuit's analysis is nicely reductionist. There is, in this case, no need for fancy arguments. The only question is whether the label on the imported blue jeans which included the terms "USA" and "Los Angeles," were "trademarks" within the meaning of the regulation.

The Federal Circuit opened a dictionary, discovered that the dictionary definition of "trademark" does not depend on whether the mark has been registered or an application for registration is pending. Consequently, without some similar limitation in the regulation, the word "trademark" has to be given its broader meaning. Even definitions from the Lanham Act, which is the U.S. federal trademark law, do not require that the marks be registered to be trademarks. According to the Court of Appeals, the word "trademark," in this context, "unambiguously incudes trademarks without a pending application."

Consequently, the Court of International Trade decision was reversed and the case was remanded.

That is a pretty detailed point of law. But, there is a bigger moral to the story. This reaffirms the uncontroversial proposition that Customs, like all federal agencies, must interpret its regulation consistent with their plain meaning. In the absence of ambiguity, Customs is not entitled to apply the regulation in a way that is inconsistent with the clear meaning. Given the Federal Circuit's perception that this regulation is clear, Customs had no basis on which to read a limitation into it.

Good job to counsel for the plaintiff.

Nominative Trademark Fair Use

Customs seized some televisions at the Port of Miami. The reason was an apparent counterfeiting of the trademarks HDMI and MHL, both of which are interface connections. You have probably seen HDMI cables and connectors. They look like big USB connectors and are present on may modern televisions, computers, and game consoles. MHL is the standard for Mobile High-Definition Link, which is a new standard designed to connect small devices such as smart phones to larger HD monitors. With an MHL connection, you can use your smartphone to stream content to your TV, which is a cool thing that can now be done via Chromecast or Miracast.

I don't usually write about simple seizures, but this one and similar seizures bug me.

Customs and Border Protection is in the habit of seizing electronics that identify electronic ports by type. For example, where a tablet has a USB port and labels it as such, CBP requires that the producer have a license to use the USB label, which is a registered trademark of the folks at the USB Implementers Forum, Inc. If the unit or the packaging has any of the familiar USB logos on it, CBP is entirely in the right to do so. Same goes for HDMI, MHL, DVD, and other standards that are associated with registered trademarks.

But, what if the unit or the box simply uses the letters HDMI to identify the port into which a compatible HDMI cable is to be inserted? What if the box says "4 HDMI ports" without ever using a trademarked logo associated with HDMI?

One might argue that because HDMI, USB, and similar designations are "word marks," any unauthorized use of the word is trademark infringement. That, however, would be wrong.

The point of a trademark is to ensure that the consumer knows the source of the product. If you buy shoes bearing a Nike swoosh, those shoes should come from Nike. Same goes for a Xerox machine, Hershey bar, Dell computer, and any other trademark. But sometimes, the use of the trademark is not to identify source and no consumer would be confused by its use. A computer service business would not be infringing if it stated that it is able to repair Dell computers. That is a description of a service, not an indication that Dell is the source of the service. Of course, that business could go too far and make a confusing claim indicating an actual affiliation with Dell.

In trademark law, there is a concept known as "nominative fair use." Nominative fair use is a limited exception to the exclusive rights of the trademark owner. It allows third parties to use the trademark to describe the product or service without indicating that the user is the origin of the product or service. This is both fair and necessary. It is fair because it does not interfere with the trademark owner's exclusive use of the mark as a designation of origin. It is also fair because it prevents the trademark owner from monopolizing a product category by making it impossible for anyone else to describe a similar or compatible product.

In some cases, it is necessary to allow a third party to describe something using a trademarked word or phrase. The alternatives would be too unwieldy. Assume, for example, that the standard sizing for batteries were subject to trademark (for all I know, it might be). If you make a flashlight that requires two AA batteries, how would you convey that to purchasers without using the AA designation? You could say: "This flashlight requires two 1.5v alkaline batteries that are 1 3/4 inches in length, and 1/2-inch diameter cylinders, with positive and negative poles at each end." That won't work and that is why we have nominative trademark fair use.

The courts have recognized this exception for some time. Customs and Border Protection has also recognized it. See HQ 472729 (Sep. 26, 2002). The concept does not seem to have trickled down to the ports.

Just to be clear, this particular seized merchandise may have been improperly festooned with HDMI logos and MHL logos without authorization from the trademark holders. In that case, CBP did its job properly. If, on the other hand, the use is consistent with nominative fair use, CBP should release the merchandise and increase the training for its personnel on this topic.

Also, I don't want anyone to think I am advocating that it import products containing HDMI, USB, MHL or similar connectivity without the manufacturer having a license to that technology. Doing so is very likely patent infringement and that raises different and very expensive problems. But, CBP does not enforce patents at the border without an exclusion order from the International Trade Commission or a federal court. Hardware and software should be properly licensed.

The only issue here is the use of descriptive labels in a nominative sense. That is a narrow exception to trademark law that needs to be better understood.

Quoth the Blogger, "Skidmore?"

Continuing my effort to catch up with the Court of International Trade and one decision of the Federal Circuit, we now come upon JBLU, Inc. v. US, a recent decision of the Court of International Trade.

The issue in this case is whether wearing apparel from China bearing the brand-name "C'est Toi Jeans Los Angeles," "CT Jeans USA," and "C'est Toi Jeans USA" were properly the subject of a Notice to Mark or Redeliver for failure to have adequate country of origin marking. Customs and Border Protection maintains that the use of "Los Angeles" and "USA" on the labels requires the there be in close proximity and in comparable size a a country of origin marking preceded by "Made in," "Product of," or another similar phrase. This requirement comes from 19 CFR 134.46,

The importer maintains that section 134.46 does not apply because the geographical designations are part of a trademark or trade name. That argument comes from 19 CFR 134.47.

The nub of the issue comes down to whether Customs' definition of "trademark" for purposes of interpreting the regulation is correct. Customs applies the trademark regulation only to registered trademarks or where there is a pending application to register a trademark. The importer claims the regulation applies to trademarks under federal law as well as common law trademarks, which are unregistered but used in commerce. A federally registered trademark is denominated with the (R) symbol while a common law trademark sometimes gets marked with the letters TM.

To cut to the chase, the Court upheld Customs' interpretation and found that to the extent there was no pending application to register the trademarks at the time of some of the entries, the Notice to Mark or Redeliver was a valid exercise of CBP authority as to those entries.

I do have a question to raise respectfully. According to the Court of International Trade, in the absence of a definition of "trademark" in the regulation, the Court must "give Customs' interpretation of 19 C.F.R. [sec] 134.47 substantial deference, unless it is 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'" For that proposition, the Court cites Supreme Court precedent and a Federal Circuit case involving a review of a dumping determination.

In the context of the de novo review of the denial of a protest, would it have been appropriate for the Court to also or instead apply Skidmore deference to CBP's determination? In that event, the Court would have to decide whether CBP's decision has the power to persuade the Court.

The decision notes that Customs' position is consistent with prior rulings and with the purpose of the marking law. Thus, I think the Court is basically saying that Customs' legal interpretation is persuasive and passes muster even under the somewhat looser Skidmore standard. That means the result is the same no matter how the Court cuts it. So all I am talking about is the label put on what the Court did.

With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe.