Supreme Court: Can A Retailer Resell Cheap Foreign Products For A Profit In The U.S.?

Written by Mark Rasch
April 18th, 2012

Attorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today serves as Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting at CSC in Virginia.

Buy low, sell high. Pretty simple. But a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court tests whether manufacturers can prevent retailers from buying their products for the lowest price simply by, for example, printing the labels for the products outside the United States. By using an “anti-grey market” copyright statute, the holder of the copyrighted work (the company that designed the label) can prevent the importation of authentic products produced for a cheaper foreign market and keep prices to U.S. retailers artificially high. It can also impose liability on the retailer that acquires these perfectly good “grey market” goods.

Take the example of a bottle of L’anza brand shampoo. The manufacturer in California sells the shampoo for say $5 a bottle in the U.S., but sells the same shampoo overseas for only $3 a bottle. Unless it violates your distribution agreement with that manufacturer, it is perfectly legal for a retailer to buy the genuine shampoo overseas, import it back to the U.S., and then resell it for a profit. But add a label to the bottle of shampoo, and the situation may change.

Unlike the shampoo bottle, the label may be subject to U.S. copyright protection (although there are similar provisions for both trademark and patent laws). When the label (as a copyrighted work) is imported into the U.S. without the permission of the copyright holder, this may violate U.S. copyright law.

Nothing in the law is easy and, of course, there are two conflicting laws. One law says that it is illegal to import U.S. copyrighted works into the U.S. without the authority of the copyright owner.

The other law says that, even if you don’t have the permission of the copyright holder, you can sell or dispose of the individual copy that you have bought and you don’t have to pay the copyright holder to do so. It is this law, called the “first sale” doctrine that allows you to sell your used CDs, videocassettes and books. The theory is, when you lawfully bought the copyrighted work, the copyright holder got what they bargained for.

But the first sale doctrine only applies to copyrighted works “made under” U.S. copyright law.

In the case of the shampoo label, about a dozen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the first sale doctrine applied to what was called “round-trip” exports. The copyrighted work (the label) is made under U.S. copyright law in California, exported overseas, and then reimported to the U.S. without the consent of the copyright holder. Because the label was made under U.S. copyright law, the person who purchased it can both export it and resell it without the permission of the author.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.