Cheat Sheet: The in-house lawyer’s guide to importation of cheaper foreign goods
Murkier than the black market, the gray market involves the sale of lower-priced foreign versions of goods imported to the U.S.
June 25, 2013 at 05:15 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Murkier than the black market, the “gray market” involves the sale of lower-priced foreign versions of goods imported to the U.S. Our June issue took a look at this phenomenon and a recent Supreme Court decision—Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons—that makes it more difficult for companies to defend against this practice.
In this case, Supap Kirtsaeng got family and friends in his native Thailand to hook him up with Wiley textbooks that were sold cheaper in Thailand than in the U.S., which he then resold for a profit in the U.S. Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement. On the following pages, we answer major questions in-house counsel should consider about the decision and its implications.
Can you break down the decision for me?
Sure. In its 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court found that the first-sale doctrine of the Copyright Act—which states that a copyright owner only has the right to control the distribution of a copy the first time it is sold—applies to every copy created with the copyright owner's permission, even those made and sold outside the U.S. So Kirtsaeng's resale of lower-priced Thai textbooks was perfectly legal, according to the high court.
Okay, but what about the Copyright Act's import control provision?
Great question, and therein lies the rub. The import control provision allows copyright holders to file infringement suits against people who import these “gray market” goods (cheaper foreign-made versions of a company's products). But in this decision, the Supreme Court places the first-sale doctrine above the import control provision.
To be fair, though, the high court has done this before. In 1998's Quality King Distributors v. L'anza Research, the Supreme Court also said that the first-sale doctrine trumps the import control provision. But, in that case, the ruling did not apply to copies made outside the U.S. So, with its ruling in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court significantly broadened the reach of the first-sale doctrine.
What does this mean for publishers?
According to Prof. Jessica Litman of University of Michigan Law School, “Publishers will have to make some hard choices.” If they carry on as they have been, with high prices in the U.S. and low prices elsewhere, they can reasonably expect to see some damage to their U.S. sales, due to the import and resale of cheaper foreign versions. But, if they make prices uniform across the globe, they may well price themselves out of overseas markets.
The (somewhat) good news is that this is really only going to be a problem for book publishers. Music sold in the U.S. costs about the same as music sold overseas, and DVDs are restricted by geographical regions—a DVD sold in the U.S. won't work on a DVD player in another region.
Is there anything book publishers can do to combat this problem?
There are a couple of potential work-arounds that publishers can look into. One option is to just publish different versions of a book in the U.S. and overseas, making it so that the overseas, cheaper copies are not adequate substitutes for the U.S. versions. Or, publishers can set up foreign affiliates which can then hold their overseas copyrights. Then, when the affiliates sell books overseas, the first-sale doctrine will likely only apply to the affiliates' rights, not the U.S. copyright holders' rights.
Murkier than the black market, the “gray market” involves the sale of lower-priced foreign versions of goods imported to the U.S. Our June issue took a look at this phenomenon and a recent Supreme Court decision—Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons—that makes it more difficult for companies to defend against this practice.
In this case, Supap Kirtsaeng got family and friends in his native Thailand to hook him up with Wiley textbooks that were sold cheaper in Thailand than in the U.S., which he then resold for a profit in the U.S. Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement. On the following pages, we answer major questions in-house counsel should consider about the decision and its implications.
Can you break down the decision for me?
Sure. In its 6-3 decision in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court found that the first-sale doctrine of the Copyright Act—which states that a copyright owner only has the right to control the distribution of a copy the first time it is sold—applies to every copy created with the copyright owner's permission, even those made and sold outside the U.S. So Kirtsaeng's resale of lower-priced Thai textbooks was perfectly legal, according to the high court.
Okay, but what about the Copyright Act's import control provision?
Great question, and therein lies the rub. The import control provision allows copyright holders to file infringement suits against people who import these “gray market” goods (cheaper foreign-made versions of a company's products). But in this decision, the Supreme Court places the first-sale doctrine above the import control provision.
To be fair, though, the high court has done this before. In 1998's Quality King Distributors v. L'anza Research, the Supreme Court also said that the first-sale doctrine trumps the import control provision. But, in that case, the ruling did not apply to copies made outside the U.S. So, with its ruling in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court significantly broadened the reach of the first-sale doctrine.
What does this mean for publishers?
According to Prof. Jessica Litman of
The (somewhat) good news is that this is really only going to be a problem for book publishers. Music sold in the U.S. costs about the same as music sold overseas, and DVDs are restricted by geographical regions—a DVD sold in the U.S. won't work on a DVD player in another region.
Is there anything book publishers can do to combat this problem?
There are a couple of potential work-arounds that publishers can look into. One option is to just publish different versions of a book in the U.S. and overseas, making it so that the overseas, cheaper copies are not adequate substitutes for the U.S. versions. Or, publishers can set up foreign affiliates which can then hold their overseas copyrights. Then, when the affiliates sell books overseas, the first-sale doctrine will likely only apply to the affiliates' rights, not the U.S. copyright holders' rights.
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 AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readCorporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
Trending Stories
- 1DLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Schools Score Again in Suits Against Social Media, Johnson & Johnson Subsidiary Seeks Sanctions Over Andy Birchfield’s Deposition
- 3Southern District Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence Demonstrating that Insured's Misrepresentations Were Material
- 4People in the News—Nov. 20, 2024—Rawle & Henderson, Panitch Schwarze
- 5How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About ,' Says Jennifer Gniady of Stradley Ronon
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