<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.9.2" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>The Gray Blog</title>
	<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress</link>
	<description>A Blog dedicated to news, laws and trends involving the parallel market.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:33:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>Parallel Market Trends in China</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent cases of Lux, An'ge and Michellin are helping to mold parallel market law in China and signal a tightening of restriction against gray market imports.]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=102</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>European Commission allows vertical restraints on online sales</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission has issued revised antitrust rules that allow luxury goods manufacturers who own less than 30% market share in any particular market to restrict the distribution of their goods through online resellers.   The press release issued by the Commission states that the “Regulation allows manufacturers to protect an exclusive distributor from [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=98</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>SUPREME COURT WILL REVISIT Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’Anza Research Int’l, Inc</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court has granted certiorari review of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., US No. 081423, a decision which held that the first sale doctrine does not apply to gray market products manufactured in a foreign country.  By this action, the Court is basically going to revisit its earlier decision in Quality King Distributors, [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=93</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Domains are property subject to Levy where the registry is located</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In Office Depot v. Zuccarini the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court decision ruling that a creditor may levy against a domain name in the jurisdiction where the domain name registry is located.  This decision is significant in that it verifies that domain names are property subject to levy.  By ruling that jurisdiction arises [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=90</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Another bigger and better ACTA leak</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Within two weeks of an alleged leak we have another bigger and better document allegedly stepping through the internet terms of the highly secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  The new document appears to be a European Union (EU) paper outlining the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters, and setting forth proposals from the U.S. and responses [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=79</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Possible Leak of ACTA Section</title>
		<description><![CDATA[An alleged excerpt of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been disseminated as a PDF on a Google file share site.  The PDF is allegedly the proposed language for Article 2.17 of the act providing for internet and digital transmission restrictions.  The file is titled  “Enforcement procedures in the digital environment” and is divided [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=74</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AFFIRMS FINDING AGAINST DIFFERENTIATED PRICING STRUCTURES INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE PARALLEL MARKET SALES</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Court of Justice has ruled in GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission and Others, a case arising from Spain, that differentiated pricing agreements intended to discourage parallel market sales violate European competition laws but has found that exemptions to that rule were not properly investigated.
In March 1998, the pharmaceuticals manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline Unlimited (‘GSK’) entered [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=65</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Warranty and service term differences are &#8220;material&#8221; for purposes of the First Sale rule</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent case of Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inventory Distribution, LLC, No. 07-3340 (10th Cir. April 9, 2009), the 10th Circuit ruled that differences in warranty and service terms can constitute a &#8220;material&#8221; difference which prevents resale despite under the first sale doctrine.  Beltronics is a manufacturer of electronics equipment which it sells [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=59</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Costco seeks to revisit Lanza decision</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Costco Wholesale Corporation (&#8220;Costco&#8221;) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to revisit and reconsider the proper interpretation of the first sale rule for foreign manufacturing and sales of products.  The Petition arises in Costco v. Omega, S.A. a case out of the 9th circuit.  This action arises [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=56</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>CTM prices drop 40%.</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission has enacted a 40% reduction in the official fees required to obtain a Community Trade Mark by merging the application and registration fees.  Previously an application fee was paid at the start of the registration process and an additional fee was paid once the registration was granted.  Effective May 1, 2009, the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=53</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
