'This Is a Big Deal': BIC General Counsel Reacts to Counterfeit Lighter Order
The International Trade Commission's order bans counterfeit BIC lighters from being imported into the U.S., but BIC is going to have to help Customs and Border Protection enforce the order.
July 01, 2020 at 06:15 PM
4 minute read
After fighting for more than a year to halt the flow of Chinese counterfeit pocket lighters into the U.S., BIC Corp. has scored a legal victory by way of a general exclusion order from the U.S. International Trade Commission.
"This is a big deal," BIC general counsel and vice president Steve Burkhart said in an interview Wednesday.
"The remedy that we achieved pertains to every person and company. It's huge. And it's just not that familiar to people, even some legal practitioners didn't realize how this worked," Burkhart added.
The case began in December 2018, when BIC filed a pair of trademark infringement complaints against the alleged counterfeiters and their stateside distributors before the commission in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn.
BIC is a French company with a North American headquarters in Shelton, Connecticut, where it has a factory that produces about 1 million lighters daily. The company pursued the complaints not only as part of an effort to keep the lighters in question out of the country but also to draw attention to the issue of intellectual property theft. The counterfeit lighters also can be dangerous and risked damaging BIC's reputation, according to Burkhart.
Based on BIC's complaint, the commission in February 2019 launched an investigation into BIC's allegations that several Chinese companies had committed trademark violations.
The probe resulted in a June 22 exclusion order that prevents imitation BIC pocket lighters from being imported into the U.S. The order names two Chinese manufacturing firms and an import company in San Diego. But the order can also apply to any company in the world that attempts to sell or import knockoff lighters in the U.S. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection will enforce the order.
"We've already been on the phone with them. There's a number of people we've talked to about the resources and programs they have to enforce," Burkhart said. "We've been very impressed with the attention they've paid to us on this case."
But he acknowledged that customs and border agents have "enormous responsibilities to the American people way beyond ITC orders." So BIC plans to help the Customs and Border Protection enforce the order. The company has developed a surveillance program that monitors more than 40 e-commerce platforms and will alert Customs and Border Protection when the company finds potential violations, according to Burkhart.
"We look for violations of everything from our intellectual property to pricing that's clearly irregular, which suggests illegal activity, to illegal shipments, because these are hazardous materials," Burkhart said.
"We've found approaching 20,000 illegal sellers on the various platforms trying to penetrate the U.S. market through nontraditional means: airports, different ports of entry that aren't New York or Long Beach. We give that information to customs," he added.
Earlier this year, BIC entered into a settlement agreement with one of the defendant companies, Arrow Lighter Inc., which does business as MK Lighter Inc. and MK Lighter Co. of City of Industry, California. As part of the agreement, which included a confidential monetary settlement, Arrow agreed to alter the design of its lighters, according to Burkhart.
Attorney Charles Wu of Irvine, California, represented Arrow and another respondent, Excel Wholesale Distributors Inc. He wrote in an email that his clients "settled with the petitioner BIC more for the business reason of wanting to save legal fees. As to the merit of petitioner BIC's case, we do not believe BIC has an invincible case."
The other respondent companies did not have attorneys and defaulted, "which is part of the playbook, particularly with Chinese defendants," Burkhart said.
"If you can get them served, which is in and of itself an achievement, they often just say, 'I'm not participating because you can't touch me. I've got no insurance. No assets. I'll just go out of business,'" he added.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250