The holding of L'Anza, which is likely to soon undergo Supreme Court review and might be overturned, is restricted to grey market imports. It says simply that a copyright holder that makes good for exports cannot then restrict re-import of goods to the United States. It does not apply to good that are not made for export. Simple as that.
The poorly written website simply takes dicta from a case and makes pretend dicta is the law, when its not.
The reason companies often settle - and when I did trademark transaction law (I now work at a movie studio and do more proactive work) we almost always settled - is because we actually don't care that much. We are required by United States law to zealously defend our copyrights and trademarks, or we lose them. We have to send cease and desist letters and threaten to sue, even to a small mom and pop operation that is of no harm to us. We only chase after it when it is a real problem that affects the bottom line - i.e. a large counterfeit ring. It is especially relevant with trademarks (which overlaps a lot with copyright, especially when we are dealing with graphic characters), because failure to protect a trademark means that the trademark is genericized and falls into the public domain. Aspirin, thermos and elevator were all once brandnames, but because the companies failed to protect them, they are no longer.
It has nothing to do with the fact that we would lose in court. We would win, because trademark and copyright law is on the side of big corporations. There's just no real point in chasing after a small mom/pop operation - its bad press and it does little to hurt business. We couldn't care less that grandma is selling stitchings on eBay and pulling in $1k in profits a year, but U.S. law requires that we defend against it. And once we send that C&D letter and settle, we did our part to protect our trademarks and copyrights, and we don't risk losing anything with respect to that now settled situation.
MAH, MAH, MAH - may I call you MAH? - you should pay closer attention to L'Anza. It was a Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court declared, "The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution." see Quality King v Lanza, 98 F.3d 1109 (1998), that was over TEN YEARS AGO, something you seem to have missed. How long ago did you "do" trademark/copyrights?
For those unfamiliar with the terminology, let us first explain "dicta". According to Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), dictum (singular of dictum) is, "a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it". When judges makes decisions that are not challenged to a higher court, those decisions have the effect of law especially when those decision are cited by other jurisdictions when they make their decisions. And, in many cases, the decisions we cite are from the circuit's court of appeals which is binding upon the lower courts in that circuit. Many, like L'Anza, are Supreme Court decisions. Show me a decision I quote that does not have the effect of law. Dicta, as you refer to it, means the footnote dissenting opinions that are not part of the decision. I do not quote those except as reference.
But again, you generalize: state the specific cases that I cite that are contrary to law. Law is written by Congress and administered by the federal courts. When an unchallenged court opinion that appears to be contrary to the law, Congress has the authority to change that law to its liking. I quote court decisions which have more authority that your interpretation of what the law appears to say. Court decisions are the court interpretation of the law.
You misrepresent the fact that companies do not care. Consider this: all Disney has to do is win one case about the use of their fabric and the practice would halt. The last licensed fabric case that went to trial was 1997 and Precious Moments lost that case. The year we sued Disney, 2002, Disney made $34 billion. The cost of swatting us aside was infinitesimal compared to their budget and their profit. Their counsel frankly admitted that they did not want to be the "test case" on that issue. AGAINST TWO PRO SE DEFENDANTS? Really? Because they did not want to take the chance they would lose, to TWO PRO SE PLAINTIFFS?
The rest of your statement is typical "loser" garbage. We frequently hear that from people who try to justify why the "big" companies cannot be bothered with small infringements. Not so. Companies and their corporate lawyers go after many small mom and pop operations all the time because they know they cannot fight back. They are easy victories that pad the legal bills, justify their existence and make the lowlifes feel so good about themselves. Also, there is NO requirement in trademark law or in copyright law that a cease & desist letter be sent before taking legal action. And, there is nothing in copyright law that requires copyright owners fight back, ever - only in trademark law. These statements by you, like many others, lack a factual basis and shows your disconnect with the real world. And, you still have not answered what you "do" trademark/copyrights means? It appears that you are a lawyer wannabe.
I stand by my challenge - show me where my web site statements are wrong.
