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

8Commission's notice of investigation which, in this case, was publishedalmost one year prior to the issuance of the contested determination. J&/The exclusion of misappropriation and unfair competition from the noticeof the investigation also is an issue upon which Makita had a previousopportunity to submit arguments. Within 14 days after service of thenotice, Makita could have filed a petition for reconsideration of theCommission's determination to institute an investigation that did not coverthe misappropriation and unfair competition allegations in thecomplaint. U/ Makita also could have filed at any time a motion (1) toamend the complaint to include additional information and evidence insupport of Makita's position that the alleged unfair acts ofmisappropriation and common-law unfair competition by respondents wereseparate and distinct from common-law trademark infringement and passingoff in this instance, U/ and (2) to amend the notice of investigation toadd misappropriation and common-l-w unfair competition to the scope of theu/ 19 C.F.R. Q 210.12 (1988 and 1989); 53 Fed. Reg. 31112 (Aug. 17, 1988).u/ 19 C.F.R. 210.60 (1988). &, Inv, No. 337-TA-252, Certain Heaw -Duty Mobile S w Shears, (1) the Commission Order and Commission Opinionof May 1, 1989, which defined the scope of the reopened investigation;(2) Complainant LaBounty Manufacturing Inc.'s Petition for Reconsiderationof the aforesaid Order and Opinion; and (3) the resulting Commission Order(June 12, 1989). which denied LaBounty's petition but provided certainclarification regarding the scope of the proceedings.u/ The misappropriation and common-law unfair competition counts set forthin the original complaint simply realleged the substance of the precedingparagraphs which set forth the elements of other alleged unfair acts.Complaint at 39, paragraphs 40-42, and 40, paragraphs 46-48.