International Law

Sunday Counterfeit News

Image via Wikipedia

Interesting recommendation about a law book discussing the legality of the grey market, over at Jed's Gray Blog:

"Finding good books on the parallel market is not an easy task.

Despite its long and prominent history in US and European legal practice, the parallel market is usually relegated by most writers to a chapter regarding diversion of goods.

It is therefore a treat to find an entire treatise devoted to the parallel market.

The fact that it is both readable and intelligent is a plus."

Read the whole article.

Interesting analysis of a recent Canadian counterfeit case, at Trade Mark Blog,

"Since the defendants' conduct was "clearly knowing, planned and deliberate" and they also attempted to "deliberately conceal or cover up their activities", punitive and exemplary damages were also awarded.

The defendants W. Lee Corporation, Ngan and Tran were jointly and severally liable for a total sum of $100,000.00 in punitive and exemplary damages.

Since W. Lee was the principal of the enterprise and was responsible for the importation and distribution of the counterfeit merchandise, she was solely liable for $200,000.00 in punitive damages."

So far the tally against the counterfeiters is $1,000,000 and counting.

What I wonder is if a counterfeit luxury brand is a better buy than a real but crappy Chinese alternative, because the alternative contains lead for example, is it really a valuable social policy to whack the legitimate grey market?

Finally, from the counterfeit mortgage department, Judge Roy Bean writes:

"I see in news reports that there is great consternation on the hill over the financial industry.

Sorry, but you're more than a decade late.

You had your chance.

You've been told over and over again that the house of cards was just that. You were content to ignore and even take advantage of the situation.

The people you turned into multi-millionaires were more than happy to help keep you in office all these years while the rest of us have been taken advantage of.

Ordinary people funded the whole sordid mess with usurious interest rates and shockingly egregious fees and charges that created jobs and incomes for millions of ancillary company employees.

The mutation sucked billions of dollars from people who thought they were supposed to own a home and did little more than lure them into paying more in interest than any other part of their budget."

Full post as published by Misleading Advertising Law on July 20, 2008 (boomark / email).