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

14desist order.Jet did not file a submission on remedy, and neither did anyother respondent.The Commission notes first that Makita's remedy submission fails toexplain why Makita believes that both a cease and desist order and anexclusion order are necessary in this case.In the Commission's view, thefacts adduced from the record do not demonstrate the need for both types ofrelief.Jet admitted having used the registered trademark "Makita" oncertain parts schematics for Taiwanese wood planers, but that practice andJet's distribution of the imported planers ceased by 1985, a/ There is noevidence of any subsequent infringement of that mark by Jet in theimportation or sale of Taiwanese power tools, ;LI/ nor did Makita prove thatJet committed any other unfair act or unfair method of competition listedin the notice of investigation.In light of these circumstances, theissuance of both types of remedial orders directed to Jet is not warranted,The Commission has determined that the sole remedial order that shouldbe issued against Jet is a cease and desist order. x/ The Commissionnotes that the administration and enforcement of an exclusion order imposesa burden on the U.S. Customs Service, which is unwarranted in this case,since Jet's infringing importations ceased by 1985 and there is no evidence%/ a ID at 238 and FF 475 and 527.x/ U. at FF 475.x/ Commissioner Eckes and Commissioner Rohr have determined that no remedyshould be issued against Jet. They note that violations of section 337 byJet ceased more than four years before the investigation was instituted.As the statute is remedial rather than punitive and there is nothing toremedy at this time, Commissioner Eckes and Commissioner Rohr believe thatthe issuance of either a cease and desist order or an exclusion orderdirected to Jet is inappropriate.