Abstract
The Davidoff ruling is also suspect when compared to the principles and policies underlying the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Tariff Act in the K Mart case. First, the Court emphatically interpreted the Act as revealing that Congress lacked "sympathy" for the "prototypical gray-market victim. Second, although the Tariff Act confers trademark owners protection against some instances of gray-market competition, it only does so for a select few who have furchased their trademarks at "arm's length" from an overseas company.24 Most importantly, this extension of trademark protection against intrabrand, gray-market competition was done on the basis of equity analysis, and both Congress and the Court explicitly disclaimed any intent to effect a "sweeping transformation of the then-prevailing trademark doctrine. In doing so, the theory of trademark law that "trademarks do not confer ... monopoly power over intrabrand competition" survived the Tariff Act.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.63140/6wewyz-ur_
Recommended Citation
Wooden, Jeremy
(2006)
"The Eleventh Circuit's Maltreatment of G-ray-Market Case Law: Davidoff & Cie v. PLD International Corp.,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2006:
No.
2, Article 10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63140/6wewyz-ur_
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2006/iss2/10