Jblu, Inc. v. United States
813 F.3d 1377
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- JBLU (C’est Toi Jeans USA) imported over 350,000 pairs of jeans from China in 2010 labeled with phrases including "C’est Toi Jeans USA," "CT Jeans USA," or "C’est Toi Jeans Los Angeles," and small "Made in China" labels on front waistbands.
- JBLU filed PTO trademark applications for "C’est Toi Jeans USA" and "CT Jeans USA" on October 8, 2010, claiming use since 2005; no application was filed for "C’est Toi Jeans Los Angeles."
- U.S. Customs inspected shipments and found violations of 19 U.S.C. § 1304 (country-of-origin marking), relying on regulations 19 C.F.R. §§ 134.46 and 134.47.
- § 134.46 requires prominent country markings where geographic words on goods may mislead purchasers; § 134.47 provides more lenient marking rules when the location word is part of a "trademark or trade name."
- Customs applied the lenient § 134.47 to jeans imported after JBLU’s trademark filings, but applied the stricter § 134.46 to pre-application shipments and to items marked "Los Angeles," issuing Notices to Mark/Redeliver that JBLU protested.
- The Court of International Trade granted summary judgment for the government; JBLU appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "trademark" in 19 C.F.R. § 134.47 includes unregistered/common-law marks | "Trademark" unambiguously includes unregistered/common-law marks and marks without pending PTO applications | "Trademark" in § 134.47 should be limited to PTO-registered marks or marks with pending applications, per Customs practice | The term "trademark" in § 134.47 unambiguously includes unregistered/common-law marks; Customs’ contrary interpretation is not entitled to deference |
| Whether JBLU’s pre-application and no-application jeans could rely on § 134.47 because its markings were trademarks | JBLU’s marks qualify as trademarks under common-law/Lanham Act definitions, so § 134.47 applies and the "Made in China" labels suffice | Customs applied § 134.46 to pre-application and no-application goods because marks lacked registration/pending application | Court reversed summary judgment for government; held § 134.47 can apply to unregistered marks and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Guess? Inc. v. United States, 944 F.2d 855 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for regulation interpretation on appeal)
- Viraj Grp. v. United States, 476 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir.) (agency interpretation not controlling when regulation is unambiguous)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S.) (agencies may not effectively rewrite clear regulations)
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States, 125 F.3d 1463 (Fed. Cir.) (ordinary meaning of undefined regulatory terms governs)
- Gose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 451 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous regulation)
- In re ECCS Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir.) (trademark rights arise from use, not registration)
- San Juan Prods., Inc. v. San Juan Pools of Kan., Inc., 849 F.2d 468 (10th Cir.) (Lanham Act protects unregistered marks)
- Roberto v. Dep’t of Navy, 440 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (courts may consult related regulations to determine plain meaning)
- Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (use of related regulatory language aids interpretation)