19 C.F.R. § 133.52

Disposition of forfeited merchandise

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

(a) Trademark (other than counterfeit) or trade name violations. Articles forfeited for violation of the trademark laws, other than articles bearing a counterfeit trademark, shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedures applicable to forfeitures for violation of the Customs laws, after the removal or obliteration of the name, mark, or trademark by reason of which the articles were seized.

(b) Copyright violations. Articles forfeited for violation of the copyright laws shall be destroyed except as provided in §§ 133.42(g) and 133.47(g).

(c) Articles bearing a counterfeit trademark. Merchandise forfeited for violation of the trademark laws shall be destroyed, unless it is determined that the merchandise is not unsafe or a hazard to health and the Commissioner of Customs or his designee has the written consent of the U.S. trademark owner, in which case the Commissioner of Customs or his designee may dispose of the merchandise, after obliteration of the trademark, where feasible, by:

(1) Delivery to any Federal, State, or local government agency that, in the opinion of the Commissioner or his designee, has established a need for the merchandise; or

(2) Gift to any charitable institution that, in the opinion of the Commissioner or his designee, has established a need for the merchandise; or

(3) Sale at public auction, if more than 90 days has passed since the forfeiture and Customs has determined that no need for the merchandise has been established under paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section.

[T.D. 79-159, 44 FR 31969, June 4, 1969, as amended by T.D. 94-90, 59 FR 55997, Nov. 10, 1994; T.D. 97-91, 62 FR 61232, Nov. 17, 1997; CBP Dec. 24-03, 89 FR 52378, June 24, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” In a letter dated December 30, 2002, Customs notified Sakar of the seizure, and informed Sakar that the goods would be forfeited — and disposed of in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 133.52 1 — unless, within 30 days, the trademark owners consented in writing to the importation of…”

H & H Wholesale Servs., Inc. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “25 (c), later codified at 19 C.F.R. § 133.52 (c), which deals with the disposition of “articles bearing a counterfeit trademark.”

Himex Co. v. United States, 17 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2014). “On April 23, 2010, the Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Office of CBP (“FPFO”) informed Himex that the seized sunglasses were subject to forfeiture, but that plaintiffs could avoid it by obtaining the written consent of the trademark owner, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 133.52 . See…”

United States v. One (1) Lot of Approximately Twenty Thousand (20,000) Pairs, 601 F. Supp. 476 (W.D.N.C. 1985). “19 C.F.R. § 133.52 (emphasis added except as to section titles).”

United States v. 61,488 Counterfeit Perfume Bottles (D.N.J. 2021). “CBP advised Sushmaa that unless it obtained written consent from the trademark holders, the Defendant Property would be forfeited and disposed of in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 133.52 . Id. CBP also sent notices of trademark violations to both of the trademark holders associated…”

Himex Co., Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C. 2014). “On April 23, 2010, the Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Office of CBP ("FPFO") infonned Himex that the seized sunglasses were subject to forfeiture, but that plaintiffs could avoid it by obtaining the written consent of the trademark owner, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 133.52 . See…”

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.