Certain Electric Power Tools, Battery Cartridges, and ... - USITC

3respondent Jet; (3) whether remedial orders should also be issued againstrespondents who were found to be in default by the Comission and/or theALJ; (4) whether the public interest precludes the granting of relief inthis investigation; and (5) the amount of the bond under which importedarticles covered by a remedial order would be permitted to enter the UnitedStates during the Presidential review period.As stated above, the Commission considered the parties' petitions forreview of the violation ID, but determined that a review was not warranted.As its final determination concerning the violation of section 337, theCommission adopted the findings and discussion in the ID on the followingmatters, which collectively support the holding that no respondent otherthan Jet has violated section 337:1. that the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and thesubject matter of the investigation;2. that the designs, the COAC~"hakita" blue, and the design/colorcombination of Makita's machines are not entitled to protection ascommon-law trademarks--je, Makita has a right to use the marks, butsome of them are & jvEa functional, none of them are inherentlydistinctive, and none of them have acquired secondary meaning;3. that Makita failed to prove a likelihood of confusion between itsproducts and respondents' accused imported products:4. that no respondent has engaged in passing off, falserepresentation, or false advertising in the importation or sale ofaccused imported merchandise; and5. that Jet is the only respondent that has infringed the registeredtrademark tWkita'' in the importation or sale of a productmanufactured in Taiwan. 6/6/ a 54 Fed. Reg. 31896 (Aug. 2, 1989).