Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message

×

News & Education

Back to Minnesota Articles

Filter by:

Disaster May Strike When Trademarks are Improperly Used on Imported Goods

The United States Customs Laws offer incredibly powerful enforcement tools designed to protect the rights of trademark owners.  These tools empower the U.S. Customs Service to seize infringing goods entering the U.S. from foreign countries and the Department of Homeland Security to raid and seize such goods in warehouses and retail stores. 

“The first step to utilize these tools is to register the trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and then with U.S. Customs,” according to Brad Thorson, a member of DeWitt’s Intellectual Property Practice Group.  “After that, if the trademark owner becomes aware of infringing products being imported, the trademark owner can alert U.S. Customs to the shipper, port, and likely date of arrival of suspected infringing goods.  Such information is readily available through various import information services.”

“It is vital for importers to ensure the goods they are importing do not infringe a registered trademark,” Thorson continued.  “Even innocent parties have felt the full force and power of Customs and Homeland Security.”   

Brad shared the story of a highly reputable U.S. retailer who suffered the consequences of packaging instructions being misinterpreted by an overseas manufacturer. 

“While one component of the product had been approved by a third-party certification laboratory (TPCL), the entire product had not,” said Thorson.  “The manufacturer misunderstood what the TPCL’s certification covered and marked the outside of the packaging with the TPCL’s registered certification mark (“bug”).  This erroneously suggested that the entire product, rather than only the component, had been certified.”

“The TPCL became aware of the mislabeled products being sold in stores and notified U.S. Customs but not the retailer,” Thorson continued.  “The retailer only learned of the error after incoming shipments were seized at several U.S. ports, and notices of the seizures were sent to the retailer for a response.”  

The seizure of the goods by Customs at the border was only the beginning of the retailer’s problems.  

“We immediately contacted Customs and the TPCL,” Thorson said.  “And we filed documents explaining how this honest mistake occurred.  We told Customs and the TPCL that there were still incoming shipments that were mid-ocean which could not be stopped from landing in the U.S.  We supplied Customs and the TPCL with the dates these shipments would be arriving and identified the ports.  Those shipments were seized as well.”

Thorson and his client proposed a simple solution to the problem—cutting the TPCL bug off the cardboard packaging of all products currently in the U.S. and incoming on ships.  The TPCL and U.S. Customs accepted this proposal.  Documents were signed memorializing this agreement.  But that wasn’t good enough for Homeland Security.

According to Thorson, “The day after this agreement was signed, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) conducted simultaneous raids of more than a dozen retail stores in eight different states.  HSI closed down and locked the stores, detained and sequestered the employees, disconnected the phones, confiscated the employee’s cell phones, seized all products which at one time bore the TPCL bug (the bug had already been removed from all of the goods per the agreement), demanded passwords to the retailer’s computers, downloaded the company’s computer records, and individually questioned each employee before they were permitted to leave.”

The government then began making demands and threats.  The government demanded the retailer forfeit all goods seized at the border and in the raids and pay a civil fine of 100% of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of those goods.  This double-whammy demand would have cost the retailer millions of dollars.  

The government threatened to indict the company and certain of its employees for criminal trademark counterfeiting if the government’s demands were not met.  Criminal trademark counterfeiting carries a criminal penalty of up to $5,000,000 for an organization.  An individual may be fined up to $2,000,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

After nearly two years of negotiation with the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and HSI, the government relented.  The government agreed to not bring criminal charges against anyone.  The government also agreed to release certain of the seized goods consistent with the agreement reached two years earlier between the retailer, the TPCL and U.S. Customs.  The retailer agreed to pay a civil penalty to the government.  

“The civil penalty was a fraction of the amount initially demanded by the government,” Thorson explained.  “We took the deal to avoid years of litigation expense and the distraction involved with contesting the civil forfeiture.  We also eliminated the possibility of any criminal charges being brought against the retailer or its employees.”

Two lessons are provided by this case.  First, U.S. government enforcement of a private trademark is, for goods being imported, potentially much more powerful than civil litigation.  Second, importers should have procedures that ensure products they are importing do not infringe registered trademarks of others.  

Thorson, and the other members of DeWitt’s Intellectual Property Practice Group, have the skills and experience to successfully guide trademark owners and importers.  Brad Thorson can be reached at 612-305-1415 or bjt@dewittllp.com. 
 

About the Author

James Nikolai is an intellectual property attorney in DeWitt’s Minneapolis office. Jim has substantial experience representing clients in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, software protection and licensing. He has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in litigating intellectual property claims. If you have any intellectual property questions, you can reach Jim by email or at (612) 305-1518.

Disclaimer

One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations

Madison

2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions

Minneapolis

2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions


Get to know us

DeWitt LLP is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly 140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Leadership
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us

Partners

We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia and an active member of SCG Legal, an association of more than 140 independent law firms serving businesses in all 50 state capitals and major commercial centers around the world.

Awards

Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018
  • BLF-Badge-2019

NOTICE

While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.