## Facts

- A brand owner of luxury handbags, luggage, accessories, and related packaging owned multiple U.S. trademark registrations covering its monogram and toile designs.
- The complaint alleged that numerous entities and individuals imported, sold for importation, and sold after importation products bearing counterfeit or confusingly similar marks on handbags, luggage, accessories, and packaging.
- The USITC instituted an investigation under § 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 based on alleged trademark infringement and examined whether a related domestic industry existed under § 337(a)(2).
- An ALJ issued an initial determination that the complainants satisfied the domestic-industry requirement.
- Over the course of the investigation, respondents either settled or were found in default; the remaining respondents were treated as “defaulting respondents.”
- The complainants moved for summary determination of violation as to the defaulting respondents and sought trade remedies, including a general exclusion order and a bond during the presidential review period.
- An ALJ granted summary determination that the defaulting respondents violated § 337 and recommended a general exclusion order and a 100% bond.
- The Commission declined to review the ALJ’s violation determination, requested briefing on remedy, public interest, and bonding, and then issued its final determination.

## Issues

1. Whether the importation, sale for importation, or post-importation sale of the accused handbags, luggage, accessories, and packaging infringed the asserted U.S. trademarks and therefore violated § 337(a)(1)(B).
2. Whether the complainants proved the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the asserted trademarks as required by § 337(a)(2).
3. If a violation existed, whether the Commission should issue a general exclusion order (rather than relief limited to named respondents) and what bond should apply during the presidential review period, considering statutory public-interest factors.

## Decision

- The Commission found a violation of § 337 based on trademark infringement.
- The domestic-industry requirement was satisfied.
- The Commission issued a general exclusion order barring entry of infringing handbags, luggage, accessories, and packaging, regardless of source.
- The Commission set a bond during the presidential review period, consistent with a 100% entered-value approach recommended by the ALJ.
- The investigation was terminated following the final determination and remedy.

## Legal Principles

- § 337(a)(1)(B) is violated by importation, sale for importation, or post-importation sale of articles that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. trademark right.
- A complainant must establish a domestic industry relating to the asserted intellectual property under § 337(a)(2); this requirement is separate from proving infringement.
- When respondents default, the Commission may treat well-pleaded factual allegations—supported by record evidence—as admitted for purposes of establishing violation, and may resolve violation by summary determination.
- A general exclusion order may issue when relief limited to named respondents is inadequate, including where there is a pattern of infringing importations and difficulty identifying or policing the sources of infringing goods.
- In selecting remedies and setting bonding, the Commission considers statutory public-interest factors and may require a bond during the presidential review period to protect the complainant from continued infringing imports.

## Conclusion

The Commission determined that defaulting respondents violated § 337 by importing and selling trademark-infringing handbags, luggage, accessories, and packaging, found the domestic-industry requirement satisfied, and granted broad trade relief through a general exclusion order with a 100% bond during the presidential review period.


In re Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories & Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-754 (U.S.I.T.C. 2012)