Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Companies are acutely aware of their duties with respect to the safety of the products they manufacture, and most have intricate frameworks in place to ensure that their products are manufactured in a safe and consistent manner. Given the recent explosion of product safety issues tied to products manufactured in China, companies are under even more scrutiny to ensure the safety of their products. The intense media scrutiny surrounding the rash of recalls of Chinese-made products (e.g., pet food, toys, toothpaste) has only increased the pressure on companies to make their products safe for consumers. However, what do companies do when consumers are injured by counterfeits of popular, brand-name products? What duty, if any, do companies have to police the marketplace and protect consumers against dangers arising from counterfeits? These counterfeits, a number of which are manufactured in China, are generally of a much lower quality and are manufactured without appropriate QA/QC mechanisms that many large companies have in place. Outside of any legal duty ' whether in courts or regulatory directives ' what must a company do to protect its brand name? Even if companies escape legal liability arising out of injuries to consumers caused by counterfeit products, the effect on a company's reputation may be just as disastrous.
This article presents a brief overview of the current state of the law regarding manufacturers' responsibilities with respect to counterfeit products, highlights some of the policy considerations a court is likely to take into account in determining whether or not to impose some duty upon manufacturers, and then provides some practical recommendations for companies to consider going forward.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.