Some Revisions of a Gray Market Decalogue: A Response to Messrs. Lewin and Steele

Authors

William H. Allen

Abstract

The author, who represented the Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks (COPIAT), in the recent United States Supreme Court case, K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., rebuts the arguments in favor of parallel importation made by Nathan Lewin and Robert W. Steele. The author argues that the Customs Service regulations interpreting section 529 of the Tariff Act of 1930 are incompatible with the Act itself and make no economic sense. He contends that there are policy and legal arguments for enforcing section 526 as written, not as the Customs Service has interpreted it, thereby prohibiting parallel importation. Although the intrabrand competition that results from parallel importation may provide short term savings for the consumer, the author contends that it ultimately results in a greater cost in terms of a product's quality and concludes that the protection of trademarks is necessary to healthy interbrand competition.

Recommended Citation

William H. Allen, Some Revisions of a Gray Market Decalogue: A Response to Messrs. Lewin and Steele, 10 UC Law SF Comm. & Ent. L.J. 1075 (1988).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol10/iss4/6