Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> FileWrapper

Intellectual Property Law

: FileWrapper

Seizure of goods with counterfeit marks not an "embargo," so no CIT jurisdiction to challenge fine

By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The case arose out of a civil fine levied against the plaintiff for importation of counterfeit goods.  The plaintiff brought suit in the CIT to contest the fine.  The CIT found that it had subject matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the case on the basis that there was no final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act.  

The Federal Circuit held that the CIT did not have subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance, as the seizure of counterfeit goods does not constitute an "embargo" pursuant to the relevant statutes.  As a result, the court vacated and remanded the CIT's decision with instructions to dismiss the case.  

More detail of Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. United States after the jump.

[More]

Full post as published by FileWrapper on February 21, 2008 (boomark / email).