*1 1074 Planter’s Nut & Chocolate conclusion, famous....” reaching its In Inc., 916, Co., Nut 305 v. Crown Co. it drew some acknowledged that Board (CCPA USPQ 504, opinion the district guidance from Brands, v. Inc. applica Specialty trademark also concerning ETF’s 1975 See Coffee 674, Inc., Distribs., case, found that no at the court 748 F.2d

tion. In that Bean only with of confusion existed record before USPQ likelihood Based on the at 1285. belts, products ETF’s shoes and respect to ETF as the “new- Board, view we must mark had the NINA RICCI on which clothing fashion accesso- comer” Inc, Enterprises, used. E.T.F. that ETF despite the fact ries business 1155, USPQ Oppo at 524.1 RICCI VITTORIO the established uses challenges rights as to longer ETF’s ser no shoes limited area of in the rather mark preclude a more goods but seeks and belts. clothing line of or services expanded Trade- Accordingly, the decision RICCI mark. under the VITTORIO offered reversed. Appeal Board is Trial and mark that NINA Ricci has shown Nina REVERSED. increasingly strong an has become RICCI source, it has been identification en protecting its marks from

vigilant others, that NINA RICCI

croachment goods used on

related marks have been at issue since well before and services CORPORATION, SAMSONITE mark for such limited use of its ETF’s Plaintiff-Appellant, services, goods goods and in some of the same parties would be sold STATES, stores, goods, overlap of the The UNITED and that Defendant-Appellee. any significant ex not exist to which did fact, not, yet prior years tent in and does No. 89-1346. extent, any significant would be exist to Appeals, expand Court of if ETF allowed to United States fostered by Nina Ricci. occupied the field now Federal Circuit. Further, holding that we see no basis for Nov. estopped from chal Nina Ricci has itself lenging right expansion ETF asserts 12, 1990. Rehearing Jan. Denied registering of its NINA RICCI reason Rehearing In Banc Suggestion for shoes, oppose. We a mark ETF did not 25, 1990. Declined Jan. opposer, Nina therefore conclude that demonstrating Ricci, has met its burden of confusion there a likelihood of exists and related its NINA RICCI

between mark RICCI

marks and ETF’s VITTORIO question. goods and

for the services decision, reiterate

reaching this we must predecessor court that teaching of our approaching even

there is “no excuse for competitor trademark of

the well-known as to confu

... and that all doubt whether

sion, mistake, likely is be deception is newcomer, especially against

resolved mark is one which

where established respect any "pri- correctly of likelihood of confusion Board determined that the 1. The preclude litigation proceeding applicant’s goods does not this or services now before us.” or under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Ricci, S.A.R.L., That USPQ2d at 1065. Nina did not determine the issue is because the court *2 porated product shipped into the finished from Mexico to the United States. Sam- sonite (Ct. Int’l Trade We affirm. appellant, Corporation, Samsonite imports

assembles in Mexico and it United States. The case involves deductibility cost of steel manufactured the United States for shipped to Samsonite’s as- plant in Mexico. The Court of In- ternational Trade described the metal strips and Samsonite’s use of them in as- sembling as follows:

[Wjhen they [sic], Tuscon straight, approximately TVsinches long, pair wide 55 inches with a parallel ridges running length-wise rolled and some fourteen 8/16-inchholes drilled along specified the centerline at dis bearing protective tances coat of Their ranged oil. cost or value from 95 plain cents to After arrival at $1.26. assembly facility Nogales, tiff’s (1) bent machine into a Outman, II, William D. Baker & McKen- analogous squared-sided form to a letter zie, D.C., Washington, argued plain- C, (2) (3) coatings, cleansed of their oil tiff-appellant. With him on the brief was vinyl covered on the in-sides with sheaths Thomas Peele. (4) riveted, out-sides, open on the Joseph Liebman, Attorney I. in Charge, plastic, 6V2 153/4-inchsheets of which x Office, International Trade Field Commer- thereby plates became the bottom Litigation Branch, Justice, cial Dept, of completed “frame assemblies.” These City, argued New York defendant-ap- enclosed, resulting, rectangular-shaped pellee. With him on the brief were Stuart subsequently placed in, assemblies were Schiffer, E. Acting Atty. Gen., Asst. David to, bags vinyl and fastened sewn Cohen, M. Director and Kenneth N. Wolf. light-weight luggage commonly form known now such terms as “soft-side” FRIEDMAN, Before Senior Circuit “carry-on.” Judge,* MAYER, BISSELL and parties stipulated at 909. The Judges. upon importation the value of the im- FRIEDMAN, Judge. Senior Circuit ported luggage ranged from $18.57 $25.37. appeal judgment This is an

United States Court of International Trade The Customs Service classified the im- upholding the denial ported the Customs Ser- merchandise as under Item vice of a deduction from assessed duties of 706.62 of the Tariff Schedules of the Unit- the cost of an item percent that had been manufac- ed the 20 States assessed ad tured the United duty provides, States after under- valorem that that item going changes Mexico, certain components was incor- cost or value certain * Judge Friedman took senior status on November 1989. stands, Service luggage that had manufactured in Customs must therefore enter favor the de- The latter deduction

the United States. fendant. pursuant made to Item 807.00 those schedules, provides that: which *3 in whole or in

Articles assembled abroad II components, prod- the part of fabricated States, (a) uct of the United which were a deduction for American-fabri- To obtain ready assembly abroad, in exported condition for the cated articles assembled fabrication, (b) have (a) further not exported without must the nents have been physical identity their in such arti- ready lost States “in condition for as- United form, by change shape, fabrication,” (b) in or other- cles sembly without further (c) wise, and have not advanced in identity been in physical have lost their the arti- improved otherwise, or in condition abroad form, value by change shape in or cles except except by being (c) assembled not have advanced in been value assembly pro- operations incidental to the “except by in improved condition as- lubricating, cleaning, cess such as “by operations and except sembled” inci- painting ... assembly process the dental to such as cleaning, lubricating, painting.” Item subject duty upon the full value are “[a] 807.00. As of No. the Court International article, the cost of the out, correctly pointed the Trade since products such the value of of United States_” “foregoing for a three conditions deduction Schedules, Tariff Item No. conjunctive, forth in are set the ... each 807.00, (West 19 U.S.C.A. 1202 § component must be a satisfied before The a deduction Customs Service denied qualify duty-free for treatment.” (which luggage from the value of the Sam- F.Supp. agree at 909. We with that court properly sonite concedes was classified un- strips the steel in involved this case 706.62) Item for of the der the cost steel not meet conditions. did strips. the is whether bend- upheld The Trade Court International shaping strips ing and that the underwent denial of the deduction. Customs’ The assembly “fabrication” or mere constituted the strips court held that steel “were not operations assembly incidental exported ready in condition for fabrica- process. We hold that what was done to tion.” 702 at 910. It found that strips in the Mexico was fabrication and “bending process” strips the to which the assembly. not mere subjected ‘adjust’ were “did more than the process article. The created the strips the exported When steel were assembled, the States, to be essence of which its they just from the United configuration. Without the resultant strips 55-inch that could not as serve plastic plate shape, the could not be at- luggage undergo- the frame of the without bottom, tached so as to constitute the and ing complete change shape. Prior to completed the frames could not be inserted strips the the plaintiff’s bags, thereby imparting into the carefully spe- bent machine into a overall stabili- intended form and structural cially configured rectangular shape that ty luggage.” the finished necessary original strip was before (footnote omitted). at 910 its function part would serve ultimate as luggage. the frame court

The concluded: summarize, short, question emerged To what after the bend- assembly ing operation object was not incidental to of a fabri- was a different component exported cated from Unit- that which the United States. The ready assembly strip; ed States condition latter was a the former steel was a pre- piece luggage. further The frame without fabrication. metal for a sumption of strip correctness that attached to transformation manner plaintiff’s protest luggage the denial of frame was fabrication. exported shape therefore had not assembly before the actual ready States “in condition begin. United could Until the steel assembly without further fabrication.” had shapes they been made into “C” could not be used luggage. as a contends, however, prior “assembly” Unlike the the court in decisions of the Court of Customs and Pat- General Instrument Appeals require contrary ent conclusion. involved, wire here “further fabrica- particularly relies General Instru- tion” of the required ment order to them into lug- frames for (CCPA 1974). That case involved wire gage, assembly before exported wound on that had been place. could take from the United States to Taiwan. There *4 spools, the wire was removed Samsonite makes a number of other ar- by winding formed into a horizontal coil guments, some of which become moot as a machine, taped prevent unraveling, result of our decision on the fabrication cement, dried, dipped precision shaped, issue. The Court of International Trade removed from the and wound discussed properly rejected the remain- product around a core. The end made from ing arguments opinion. in its There is no the wire was a óf a television occasion for repeat us to analy- set that was into the United sis. States. Ap- Court of Customs and Patent CONCLUSION

peals steps performed “The of the Court of Interna- upon the exportation wire after its to Tai- dismissing tional Trade the action is wan are steps, not ‘further fabrication’ but AFFIRMED. assembly steps rather meaning within the of item 807.00.” 499 F.2d at 1320. BISSELL, Judge, dissenting. argues far more was

done to the wire in disagree General Instrument majority’s attempt with the than was done to the steel distinguish General Instrument argues processing case. that if the (CCPA 1974), 499 F.2d 1318 wire underwent in General Instrument on the basis that the wire in that case left “fabrication,” was not “the one and returned to the United States coiled on fortiori simple-minded straight act of spools. If despooling, forming, taping, ce- frame into a ‘C’” was neither “a ‘further ment-dipping, drying, precision- and then ” opera- fabrication’ nor “a non-incidental shaping does not constitute “further fabri- tion.” cation,” drawing id. at and if supply spools, cutting, stripping, weaving, in determining securing tape and then with is not “further whether fabrication rather than mere as- fabrication,” id., I not see do how Samson- here, place took is not the amount bending, cleansing, covering ite’s that occurred in the two assembling plastic sheaths and then cases, but its nature. In General Instru- According- be “further here. fabrication” ment, wire, when it left the United ly, I would reverse the United States Court States and when it returned as of a judgment uphold- of International Trade’s product, finished was a coil. The wire was ing the Customs Service’s denial of the directly supply taken spool deduction. which it was processing, wound after

was used in the TV set

nents. The wire underwent no basic

change in incorporation connection with its component. the television set contrast, present case undergo significant had to