19 C.F.R. § 133.22

Restrictions on importation of articles bearing copying or simulating trademarks

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Copying or simulating trademark or trade name defined. A “copying or simulating” trademark or trade name is one which may so resemble a recorded mark or name as to be likely to cause the public to associate the copying or simulating mark or name with the recorded mark or name.

(b) Denial of entry. Any articles of foreign or domestic manufacture imported into the United States bearing a mark or name copying or simulating a recorded mark or name shall be denied entry and subject to detention as provided in § 133.25.

(c) Relief from detention of articles bearing copying or simulating trademarks. Articles subject to the restrictions of this section shall be detained for 30 days from the date on which the goods are presented for Customs examination, to permit the importer to establish that any of the following circumstances are applicable:

(1) The objectionable mark is removed or obliterated as a condition to entry in such a manner as to be illegible and incapable of being reconstituted, for example by:

(i) Grinding off imprinted trademarks wherever they appear;

(ii) Removing and disposing of plates bearing a trademark or trade name;

(2) The merchandise is imported by the recordant of the trademark or trade name or his designate;

(3) The recordant gives written consent to an importation of articles otherwise subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraph (b) of this section or § 133.23(c) of this subpart, and such consent is furnished to appropriate Customs officials;

(4) The articles of foreign manufacture bear a recorded trademark and the one-item personal exemption is claimed and allowed under § 148.55 of this chapter.

(d) Exceptions for articles bearing counterfeit trademarks. The provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section are not applicable to articles bearing counterfeit trademarks at the time of importation (see § 133.26).

(e) Release of detained articles. Articles detained in accordance with § 133.25 may be released to the importer during the 30-day period of detention if any of the circumstances allowing exemption from trademark or trade name restriction set forth in paragraph (c) of this section are established.

(f) Seizure. If the importer has not obtained release of detained articles within the period of detention as provided in § 133.25 of this subpart, the merchandise shall be seized and forfeiture proceedings instituted. The importer shall be promptly notified of the seizure and liability to forfeiture and his right to petition for relief in accordance with the provisions of part 171 of this chapter.

[T.D. 99-21, 64 FR 9062, Feb. 24, 1999, as amended at CBP Dec. 12-10, 77 FR 24380, Apr. 24, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 2001–2019 · leading case: Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc., a California Corp., D/B/A Sisco v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., a New York Corp., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc., a California Corp., D/B/A Sisco v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., a New York Corp., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “If the allegedly infringing party receives notice of exclusion, it then has the following administrative remedies: (1) obliteration of the trademark pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 133.22 (c)(1); (2) initiation of a judicial forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 19 U.”

United States v. Able Time, Inc., 545 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 133.22 (a). This is equivalent to the traditional “likelihood of confusion” test for trademark infringement.”

H & H Wholesale Servs., Inc. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 133.22 is entitled "[Restrictions on importation of articles bearing copying or simulating trademarks,” and provides that "[a]ny articles .”

Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “§ 1127 (2000); 19 C.F.R. § 133.21 (a). Merchandise bearing a "counterfeit mark” is thus a subset of merchandise that merely "copies or simulates” a registered mark.”

United States v. 10,510 Packaged Comput. Towers, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “” 19 C.F.R. § 133.22 (a). The court has already decided that the reverse-“UR” mark on the packaged computer towers was “substantially indistinguishable” from Underwriters Laboratories’ registered mark.”

LKQ Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. & Sec'y Kirstjen Nielsen, 369 F. Supp. 3d 577 (D. Del. 2019). “" 19 C.F.R. §§ 133.22 (a) -(b). The Court understands this regulation to provide fairly broad discretion for custom agents to make an initial decision as to whether seizure is appropriate.”

United States v. Able Time, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 133.22 (a). This is equiv- alent to the traditional “likelihood of confusion” test for trade- UNITED STATES v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.