Posted on 09/06/2005 9:16:14 AM PDT by Westlander
LOL, I like your tag line.
Me too, but some seem offended...
Now that is good government.
How so?
How so? -SS
The government seizes items which are not genuine. they are counterfeit. The government does not own those items. They are supposed to be destroyed, so as to never reach the retail market. If they get there, then the designer/copyright holders rights are damaged.
DVD's are a prime example. China makes them for 20 cents, and pays no feesw to the US makers. Many each our shores. It is just another form of stealing...
The bottom line to the question, though, is that the gum't had no right to give away anything! There are plenty of other things being donated, to meet the needs.
Do you have a reference that states these goods must be destroyed and cannot be used in this way?
Other than what you believe to be the case?
I'm not a lawyer, but you can google most anything, if you really want to know. I already do...
Well if you didn't have clothes, or sheets or whatever, these items will be better than nothing. They aren't paying for them just using available resources to meet an immediate need.
U.S. Code, Title 19, Chapter 4, Subtitle III, Part III, par 1526:
(e) Merchandise bearing counterfeit mark; seizure and forfeiture; disposition of seized goods
Any such merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark (within the meaning of section 1127 of title 15) imported into the United States in violation of the provisions of section 1124 of title 15, shall be seized and, in the absence of the written consent of the trademark owner, forfeited for violations of the customs laws. Upon seizure of such merchandise, the Secretary shall notify the owner of the trademark, and shall, after forfeiture, destroy the merchandise. Alternatively, if the merchandise is not unsafe or a hazard to health, and the Secretary has the consent of the trademark owner, the Secretary may obliterate the trademark where feasible and dispose of the goods seized—
(1) by delivery to such Federal, State, and local government agencies as in the opinion of the Secretary have a need for such merchandise,
(2) by gift to such eleemosynary institutions as in the opinion of the Secretary have a need for such merchandise, or
(3) more than 90 days after the date of forfeiture, by sale by the Customs Service at public auction under such regulations as the Secretary prescribes, except that before making any such sale the Secretary shall determine that no Federal, State, or local government agency or eleemosynary institution has established a need for such merchandise under paragraph (1) or (2).
Perfectly legal. I dare any trademark owner to protest.
You sort of overlook that part, in your rebuttal. Lacking that permission, it clearly states the action to be taken...
..Upon seizure of such merchandise, the Secretary shall notify the owner of the trademark, and shall, after forfeiture, destroy the merchandise.
I am not objecting to giving it. It isn't mine to give, or keep. I would give it, were it mine. I was just quoting the law, as it is written!
I didn't overlook it at all. How do you know they don't have consent?
Tell you what, hold that thought for a moment.
We have a memo around here somewhere that addressed the issue of the goods and consent. As soon as I find it, I'll give you the explanation.
Okay, I'm back.
The goods that were given away either had (1) permission from the trademark holder or (2) the trademark obliterated.
Either way, it was done by the numbers.
Only (1) applies. The trademark must be obliterated, IF THEY HAD PERMISSION, but the owner is the only one to give permission for distribution. I did not read the article that finely, so can't say, in this case. But the basic point I make, is that it can only be done with permission.
Either way, it was done by the numbers.
Depends on who's fingers are counting!
Regardless, I am hoping it fills a void, and isn't some some politically inspired, knee-jerk response. I am cynical enough to believe the latter!
Okay, I give up.
Maybe Customs cuts out, or marks over, the phoney labels?
see 30, 31, 35
Well this would be an "eleemosynary" usage of the goods.
I'd infer from this that various trademark owners have their policies on file with the Secretary so that the Secretary doesn't have to keep bugging the owners each time phoney merchandise shows up, to determine what to do. I don't see Levi's on this list; since it is a common name, I would infer their policy on this says destroy, while Tommy Hilfiger says donate.
This is truly a WIN-WIN, a term I have never been fond of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.