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.
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.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2006/iss2/10