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

20arguments of the parties and the evidence on the record, the ALJ and theComission both determined that neither the designs, nor the color "Makita"blue, nor the design/color combinations in dispute are entitled toprotection as common-law trademarks.It would be contrary to public policyfor the Comission to issue a remedial order on the basis of presumedinfringement of marks that are not protected by valid and enforceableintellectual property rights.The issuance of a remedial order directed to the defaultingrespondents in this investigation also would have an adverse impact oncompetitive conditions in the U.S. economy.Makita would be receiving acompetitive advantage to which it is not entitled.To the extent thatthere is a right to copy the marks in the absence of a valid intellectualproperty right and that some duplication may be a matter of competitivenecessity, B/ the issuance of a remedial order directed to the defaultingrespondents would have an adverse impact on lawful competition by thoserespondents.Given the facts that Makita has not been able to conclusively define itsdesign marks X/ and that the color it refers to as "Makita" blue is not asingle, readily identifiable color, a/ Customs' administration andenforcement of an exclusion order directed to the defaulting respondents'merchandise is likely to be problematic and could impede the entry ofTaiwanese imports that are not covered by the order.4e/ &g gener- Violation ID at 204-206 and FF 218-220.X/&g ID at 140-159.U/L at FF 139.