6 ms·

The products here may be considered legally counterfeit for one or more reasons other than simply using the word mark APPLE. For example: (1) trademark or trade

The products here may be considered legally counterfeit for one or more reasons other than simply using the word mark APPLE. For example: (1) trademark or trade dress infringement if the product's decorative features (color, etc.) or packaging copies a registered trademark of Apple, (2) copyright infringement if the product contains copied Apple code without a license,(3) patent infringement if the product implements some patented Apple technology without a license, (4) design patent infringement if the product is a copy of an Apple-patented ornamental design, or (5) some other copied intellectual property.

bjt 6y ago
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you're being downvoted while the least well-informed comments along the lines of "Customs officials are dumb!" are at the top. This is very likely a design patent case, not just trademark. In which case, they could be infringing regardless of the logo on the box. Then again, the article isn't helping, as it also seems oblivious to the design patent possibility.
- fphhotchips 6y ago
  I think pinning this to the article is a bit rough, as the press release indicates they think the item is counterfeit, which implies that they're attempting to fraudulently pass themselves off as AirPods. To me, the use of the word "counterfeit" implies a trademark violation. That's clearly not happening, as the box indicates. If the press release indicated - anywhere - even a whiff of there being a design patent issue (which is subtler and more nuanced than the word "counterfeit" allows for), I'd say it was fair to criticise the article. That's not the case though, and reading the press release, I don't think CBP thought there was a design patent issue either.
  - natch 6y ago
    Shipping counterfeit products through customs with a misleading box that is then removed prior to sale is a common ploy. And one that CBP is aware of. The box means absolutely nothing here.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Except that they're OnePlus Buds shipped in a OnePlus Box. They don't even look like Airpods, they look like OnePlus Buds.
      - natch 6y ago
        If they can fool CBP, maybe they were copying Apple a little too slavishly.
luxurycommunism 6y ago
It really goes to show the psychological game China is playing and winning. Establish a brand and people won't even think that you might be violating IP. Actually Western companies are just as guilty of shameless appropriation and getting away with it by having more clout and better lawyers than the people who invented them.
Termious 6y ago
https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=U-S-Customs-and-Border-Protection-CBP https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=U-S-Customs-and-Border-... From what I understand, CBP doesn't confiscate counterfeits on the basis of design patents unless a specific complaint has been made by the patent holder to the ITC. So it seems unlikely to me that this seizure is design patent related and it's likely this seizure is in error.
- SilasX 6y ago
  Or Apple made a specific complaint.
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Copyright and patents don't make sense, obviously the CBP doesn't reverse-engineer on imported products. The CBP will only seize them if the case has been already litigated, which is not what's going on here. CBP claims they're counterfeits, so the remaining option is a trademark/trade dress infringement, or a design patent infringement. Now the questions boils down to: Does Apple own any trademark or design patent on the physical appearance of AirPods that justifies the confiscation? I'm waiting for someone to check it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
himinlomax 6y ago
It's reasonable to think that One Plus could be found to be infringing on Apple's trademarks or design patents, but that would have to be decided in court. It's rather strange that customs could decide that some product clearly labelled with one trademark (and an established one at that) are counterfeits of another.
- 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
  > that would have to be decided in court Apparently not. A lot of stuff doesn't need to be decided in court when you're in an airport - it's a legal grey area (or so I've heard). Border protection can pretty much do whatever they want in the name of national security and get away with it.

bjt 6y ago

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you're being downvoted while the least well-informed comments along the lines of "Customs officials are dumb!" are at the top. This is very likely a design patent case, not just trademark. In which case, they could be infringing regardless of the logo on the box. Then again, the article isn't helping, as it also seems oblivious to the design patent possibility.

fphhotchips 6y ago
I think pinning this to the article is a bit rough, as the press release indicates they think the item is counterfeit, which implies that they're attempting to fraudulently pass themselves off as AirPods. To me, the use of the word "counterfeit" implies a trademark violation. That's clearly not happening, as the box indicates. If the press release indicated - anywhere - even a whiff of there being a design patent issue (which is subtler and more nuanced than the word "counterfeit" allows for), I'd say it was fair to criticise the article. That's not the case though, and reading the press release, I don't think CBP thought there was a design patent issue either.
- natch 6y ago
  Shipping counterfeit products through customs with a misleading box that is then removed prior to sale is a common ploy. And one that CBP is aware of. The box means absolutely nothing here.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Except that they're OnePlus Buds shipped in a OnePlus Box. They don't even look like Airpods, they look like OnePlus Buds.
    - natch 6y ago
      If they can fool CBP, maybe they were copying Apple a little too slavishly.

luxurycommunism 6y ago

It really goes to show the psychological game China is playing and winning. Establish a brand and people won't even think that you might be violating IP. Actually Western companies are just as guilty of shameless appropriation and getting away with it by having more clout and better lawyers than the people who invented them.

Termious 6y ago

https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=U-S-Customs-and-Border-Protection-CBP https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=U-S-Customs-and-Border-... From what I understand, CBP doesn't confiscate counterfeits on the basis of design patents unless a specific complaint has been made by the patent holder to the ITC. So it seems unlikely to me that this seizure is design patent related and it's likely this seizure is in error.

SilasX 6y ago
Or Apple made a specific complaint.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

Copyright and patents don't make sense, obviously the CBP doesn't reverse-engineer on imported products. The CBP will only seize them if the case has been already litigated, which is not what's going on here. CBP claims they're counterfeits, so the remaining option is a trademark/trade dress infringement, or a design patent infringement. Now the questions boils down to: Does Apple own any trademark or design patent on the physical appearance of AirPods that justifies the confiscation? I'm waiting for someone to check it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

himinlomax 6y ago

It's reasonable to think that One Plus could be found to be infringing on Apple's trademarks or design patents, but that would have to be decided in court. It's rather strange that customs could decide that some product clearly labelled with one trademark (and an established one at that) are counterfeits of another.

0xdeadb00f 6y ago
> that would have to be decided in court Apparently not. A lot of stuff doesn't need to be decided in court when you're in an airport - it's a legal grey area (or so I've heard). Border protection can pretty much do whatever they want in the name of national security and get away with it.