Except as provided in subsection (d) of section 1526 of title 19, no article of imported merchandise which shall copy or simulate the name of any domestic manufacture, or manufacturer, or trader, or of any manufacturer or trader located in any foreign country which, by treaty, convention, or law affords similar privileges to citizens of the United States, or which shall copy or simulate a trademark registered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or shall bear a name or mark calculated to induce the public to believe that the article is manufactured in the United States, or that it is manufactured in any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which it is in fact manufactured, shall be admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States; and, in order to aid the officers of the customs in enforcing this prohibition, any domestic manufacturer or trader, and any foreign manufacturer or trader, who is entitled under the provisions of a treaty, convention, declaration, or agreement between the United States and any foreign country to the advantages afforded by law to citizens of the United States in respect to trademarks and commercial names, may require his name and residence, and the name of the locality in which his goods are manufactured, and a copy of the certificate of registration of his trademark, issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, to be recorded in books which shall be kept for this purpose in the Department of the Treasury, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and may furnish to the Department facsimiles of his name, the name of the locality in which his goods are manufactured, or of his registered trademark, and thereupon the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause one or more copies of the same to be transmitted to each collector or other proper officer of customs.
Notes of Decisions
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (1988).
· cites it 4× “They also asserted that the Customs Service regulation was inconsistent with § 42 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1124 , which prohibits the importation of goods bearing marks that "copy or simulate" United States trademarks.”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
· cites it 3× “§ 1125 (a)(1)(A); (3) unlawful importation of goods bearing infringing marks in violation of § 42 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1124 ; (5) unlawful importation of goods bearing infringing marks in violation of § 1526(a) of the Tariff Act, 19 U.”
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988).
· cites it 6× “[3] Specifically, COPIAT asserted that the common-control and authorized-use exceptions are inconsistent with both § 526(a) of the 1930 Tariff Act, and § 42 of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1124 , which prohibits the importation of goods bearing marks that "copy or…”
Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Section 42 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1124 , forbids importation of merchandise “which shall copy or simulate a [registered] trademark.”
Vivitar Corp. v. The United States, & 47th Street Photo, Inc., Intervenor, 761 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 5× “Customs Service pursuant to regulations implementing exclusion provisions in the customs statute (§ 1526), as well as other exclusion provisions found in the trademark statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1124 . Vivitar is engaged in the sale of photographic equipment in the United States and…”
Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States of Am., 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 1526 (1988) (“section 526”), and section 42 of the Lan-ham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1124 (1988) (“section 42”). In its five-count amended complaint, Yamaha-America alleged the following: Count I — ABC has violated section 32(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.”
United States v. Able Time, Inc., 545 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “§ 1127 and 15 U.S.C. § 1124 . Both are part of the Trademark Act of 1946, known as the Lanham Act, and neither contains an identity of goods or services requirement.”
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Lee, 481 F. Supp. 2d 742 (W.D. Tex. 2006).
· cites it 6× “§ 1125 (a); (3) unlawful importation of goods bearing infringing trademarks, in violation of Section 42 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1124 ; (4) unlawful importation of goods bearing registered trademarks, in violation of Section 526(a) of the Tariff Act, 19 U.”
Bell & Howell : Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co., 548 F. Supp. 1063 (E.D.N.Y 1982).
· cites it 5× “§ 1526 ), and in section 42 of the Lanham Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1124 ). Understandably, these have been subjected to extremely close scrutiny by practitioners and scholars, who have expressed widely, divergent views about their significance.”
Akhenaten v. NAJEE, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
· cites it 4× “20; (8) importation of infringing goods in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1124 , 4 and (9) cancellation of Defendants’ *325 registered federal trademarks under 15 U.”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Lee, 547 F. Supp. 2d 667 (W.D. Tex. 2008).
· cites it 4× “§ 1125 (a)(1)(A); (3) unlawful importation of goods bearing infringing marks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1124 ; (4) unlawful importation of goods bearing a registered trademark in violation of 19 U.”
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.