The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Nov. 3-9:
The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies "lacks any evidence" that in-dash navigation and music systems marketed in General Motors vehicles for the past three years "are capable of reproducing any material objects that qualify as ‘digital musical recordings,’" GM argued in an amended answer and counterclaim to AARC’s allegations that Ford, GM and their suppliers have violated the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). That and other factors prove that GM car infotainment systems containing hard drives onto which consumers can upload music from their CDs do not "fall within the scope" of the AHRA, GM said in the amended answer to AARC's complaint (case number 1:14-cv-01271) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (see 1407310086).
The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies "lacks any evidence" that in-dash navigation and music systems marketed in General Motors vehicles for the past three years "are capable of reproducing any material objects that qualify as ‘digital musical recordings,’" GM argued in an amended answer and counterclaim to AARC’s allegations that Ford, GM and their suppliers have violated the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). That and other factors prove that GM car infotainment systems containing hard drives onto which consumers can upload music from their CDs do not "fall within the scope" of the AHRA, GM said in the amended answer to AARC's complaint (case number 1:14-cv-01271) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (see 1407310086).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 27 - Nov. 2:
Products labeled “Made in the U.S.A.” and sold in California must comply with both federal labeling laws and California’s tougher standards, said the Southern California U.S. District Court on Oct. 27 as it denied a move to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against AG Adriano Goldschmeid (AGAG) and Nordstrom for allegedly false labeling claims on imported jeans. Although federal labeling laws allow for products to contain some foreign-origin parts and still be labeled as U.S.-made, while California’s rules require all parts to be U.S.-origin, the two sets of laws don’t create a conflict that must be resolved in court. Rather, companies can and must follow both standards, said the District Court.
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Oct. 20-26:
The International Trade Commission is asking for comments on whether it should keep in place six exclusion orders against decades-old toys and arcade games like Rubik’s Cube and Pac-Man. According to the ITC notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the six import bans “may be candidates for rescission” because of changed conditions. “CBP’s preliminary investigation has indicated that the trademarks or trade dress at issue in the exclusion orders are no longer used in commerce or complainant has stopped making required compliance filings,” says the ITC notice. Under examination are exclusion orders issued in 1979 on novelty drinking glasses (337-TA-055); in 1981 on coin-operated arcade games that infringe trademarks held by Midway; in 1982 on other Midway arcade games, including Rally-X and Pac-Man; in 1982 on cube puzzles, including Rubik’s Cube; in 1989 on strip lights; and in 1990 on novelty teleidoscopes, which are a kind of kaleidoscope that have an open view and are used to create kaleidoscopic patterns from outside objects instead of items in the tube itself. More information on each investigation is available in a spreadsheet kept by the ITC on Section 337 investigations begun before 2008 (here). The ITC is asking for comments on the Section 337 cases, on whether the exclusion orders should be terminated based on changed conditions or the public interest. Comments are due by Dec. 22.
The International Trade Commission is asking for comments on whether it should keep in place six exclusion orders against decades-old toys and arcade games like Rubik’s Cube and Pac-Man. According to the ITC notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the six import bans “may be candidates for rescission” because of changed conditions. “CBP’s preliminary investigation has indicated that the trademarks or trade dress at issue in the exclusion orders are no longer used in commerce or complainant has stopped making required compliance filings,” says the ITC notice. Under examination are exclusion orders issued in 1979 on novelty drinking glasses (337-TA-055); in 1981 on coin-operated arcade games that infringe trademarks held by Midway; in 1982 on other Midway arcade games, including Rally-X and Pac-Man; in 1982 on cube puzzles, including Rubik’s Cube; in 1989 on strip lights; and in 1990 on novelty teleidoscopes, which are a kind of kaleidoscope that have an open view and are used to create kaleidoscopic patterns from outside objects instead of items in the tube itself. More information on each investigation is available in a spreadsheet kept by the ITC on Section 337 investigations begun before 2008 (here). The ITC is asking for comments on the Section 337 cases, on whether the exclusion orders should be terminated based on changed conditions or the public interest. Comments are due by Dec. 22.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) should reconsider its "unfair and unnecessarily adverse" interpretation of antiboycott regulations for "vessel eligible certificates," the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA) said in a filing with BIS (here). The association complained that the BIS Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) has taken a problematic stance as to how it considers such certificates, hurting exporters and forwarding agents as a result. Antiboycott laws restrict U.S. companies' compliance with Arab-country laws that call for a boycott of any dealings with Israel, including use of Israeli ports.
All motions to keep a case on the Court of International Trade’s Reserve Calendar must be filed 30 days before expiration of the Reserve Calendar period, even in cases where a litigant is requesting a subsequent extension, said CIT Judge Delissa Ridgway in an opinion issued Oct. 20. The issue came up in a recent decision (here) where Judge Ridgway grudgingly granted an extension to the Reserve Calendar period for Rockwell Automation in a tariff classification case, despite finding Rockwell’s requests were filed late.