Forwarder Agrees to Shipper and Importer Verification Requirements in Trademark Settlement With Nike
A New Jersey freight forwarder has agreed to shipper and importer verification requirements, as well as conditions on acting as a go-between for customs brokers and importers, as part of a settlement of a trademark suit filed by Nike in the Southern New York U.S. District Court.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Hana Freight, which does business as Hana International Logistics, had acted as a foreign forwarder’s U.S. receiving agent on a shipment later discovered to be of Nike counterfeit shoes. The customs broker involved in the shipment, B&H Customs Brokers, settled in May after agreeing to power of attorney verification requirements (see 2005130023). The foreign forwarder that arranged transportation, China-based Shine Shipping, remains party to the lawsuit.
In a complaint filed in February, Nike had said Shine, Hana and B&H ignored red flags on shipping and entry documentation when they brought in counterfeit shoes described as lamps on shipping documentation. For example, the importer named on the documentation had been out of business for two years by the time of the shipment.
Like B&H, Hana does not admit guilt as part of the settlement, which was approved by the district court judge on Sept. 24.
Under the settlement, Hana must take steps to communicate directly with the shipper and the importer or ultimate consignee to verify the authenticity of shipping documentation it receives “for any cargo for which it provides transportation services to or from the United States.” Hana is required to either call, fax or email the shipper and importer, using either a number or e-mail address publicly available in a government database, on a website where at least the second level of the website’s domain name incorporates the shipper’s corporate name, or in a publicly listed and generally recognized as reliable internet database.
Hana must also verify with any foreign forwarder or non-vessel operating common carrier that refers it a shipment for transportation that the foreign forwarder or NVOCC has had direct contact with the shipper or importer, and has verified that the container was actually delivered and picked up from the location associated with the shipper. Hana also has to verify the referring forwarder or NVOCC via government or publicly available database, and the referring party has to agree in writing to indemnify any third parties harmed by Hana’s transportation of cargo that contains infringing goods.
The settlement says Hana must confirm that any foreign forwarder that refers a shipment, if the forwarder is performing the services of an NVOCC or holding out to the public that it does, is licensed and bonded with the Federal Maritime Commission.
Finally, the settlement provides that Hana cannot act as the intermediary between the importer of record and the customs broker on a shipment, including for the purposes of passing on the power of attorney, without receiving written confirmation that the broker has had direct contact with the importer of record, and has validated the power of attorney.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the settlement agreement.