## Facts

- Osawa & Company, a Delaware corporation, owned U.S. registrations for the Mamiya trademarks used on medium-format photographic equipment manufactured in Japan by Mamiya Camera Co.
- Mamiya Camera Co. lawfully applied the Mamiya marks to the goods abroad; a related Japanese entity was the exclusive worldwide distributor and granted Osawa exclusive U.S. distribution rights.
- Ownership and control were closely related: the Japanese distributor and Mamiya Camera Co. together owned all of Osawa’s stock, and the distributor also held an ownership interest in Mamiya Camera Co.
- Osawa obtained a U.S. Customs exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § 1526 barring unauthorized importation of Mamiya-marked goods.
- Defendants, New York discount camera dealers, allegedly imported and sold genuine Mamiya-marked products without Osawa’s authorization despite the Customs order.
- Osawa operated an authorized-dealer network and provided promotional support, warranties, seminars, and advertising; it claimed grey-market sales undercut pricing and harmed its dealer network and sales.
- Osawa sued under 19 U.S.C. § 1526; Lanham Act §§ 42, 32, and 43 (15 U.S.C. §§ 1124, 1114, 1125); and related state unfair-competition and dilution theories, seeking a preliminary injunction barring defendants from advertising and selling the goods.

## Issues

1. Whether a U.S. trademark registrant for foreign-manufactured goods may, through § 1526 and the Lanham Act, enjoin independent importers from selling genuine goods bearing the same marks lawfully applied abroad.
2. Whether defendants’ sale of genuine Mamiya-marked products constituted infringement or unfair competition based on consumer confusion, misrepresentation, or material differences.
3. Whether Osawa satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including likelihood of success and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court denied Osawa’s motion for a preliminary injunction (as later modified by order).
- The court treated the dispute as involving genuine goods, not counterfeits, and found the record insufficient to show that defendants’ conduct created actionable confusion or deception.
- The close relationship among the U.S. trademark owner, the foreign manufacturer, and the world distributor weakened the claim that the U.S. registration could be used to block parallel imports of the same manufacturer’s goods.
- The Customs exclusion order did not, by itself, establish entitlement to broad private injunctive relief.
- Osawa’s asserted injuries were largely economic consequences of price competition and distribution disruption, not a sufficiently demonstrated trademark-type injury warranting preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- Sale or importation of genuine trademarked goods from the same manufacturer generally is not actionable under the Lanham Act absent a showing such as material differences, misrepresentation, or a substantial likelihood of consumer confusion about source, affiliation, or warranty.
- A Customs exclusion determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1526 is not dispositive of Lanham Act liability and does not automatically justify a federal court injunction without a substantive showing meeting equitable standards.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires, at minimum, a strong showing on the merits and irreparable harm; harms characterized primarily as lost sales or competitive disadvantage are less likely to satisfy irreparable-harm requirements without a clear link to protectable goodwill or consumer deception.

## Conclusion

The court declined to preliminarily enjoin discount dealers from selling grey-market, genuine Mamiya-marked goods because the record did not show likely trademark liability or irreparable trademark-type harm, and the Customs exclusion order did not alone warrant broad injunctive relief.


Osawa & Co. v. B & H Photo, 589 F. Supp. 1163 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)