Apple & Customs STOLE Louis Rossmann batteries

[janoc]

Fortunately trademark laws don't work that way. Please read more about it!
What is possible is to register a trademark in a country so other companies can not sell similar products under the same name. Usually this is done by importers. But that doesn't prevent others from importing (genuine) articles from that manufacturer. For sure importers try to prevent that (by spreading FUD) but they have no legal grounds to do so.

Nico, I suggest that you actually read something about it otherwise you wouldn't talk such nonsense. Trademarks have nothing to do with any "importers" or "importers usually doing it". Importer is almost never the owner of the mark so they hardly can do that.

The only time anything "import" comes into play when customs and borders are concerned because customs are typically charged with preventing counterfeit items from entering the market.

However trademarks can be (and are) routinely enforced domestically and across borders too. And it is not only the same name but also design, plus the offending mark doesn't even need to be identical, it is enough if it is sufficiently similar to be confused with the protected design/logo/name etc.

E.g. the well known trademark dispute between Apple Corps. (owned by the Beatles) and Apple Computer over the "Apple" trademark. Apple (the computer company) has actually lost a few of those lawsuits and had to pay to the other Apple over the years.

[nctnico]

Fortunately trademark laws don't work that way. Please read more about it!
What is possible is to register a trademark in a country so other companies can not sell similar products under the same name. Usually this is done by importers. But that doesn't prevent others from importing (genuine) articles from that manufacturer. For sure importers try to prevent that (by spreading FUD) but they have no legal grounds to do so.

The only time anything "import" comes into play when customs and borders are concerned because customs are typically charged with preventing counterfeit items from entering the market.

However trademarks can be (and are) routinely enforced domestically and across borders too. And it is not only the same name but also design, plus the offending mark doesn't even need to be identical, it is enough if it is sufficiently similar to be confused with the protected design/logo/name etc.

E.g. the well known trademark dispute between Apple Corps. (owned by the Beatles) and Apple Computer over the "Apple" trademark. Apple (the computer company) has actually lost a few of those lawsuits and had to pay to the other Apple over the years.

This is exactly what I'm writing! AFAIK importers do register trademarks if that has not been done by the OEM yet to protect 'their' market against counterfeiters.

Either way a trademark claim is not going to hold up against parallel import of genuine goods.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes you do!  Read the applicable section of the US Code above.

Even if it is the very same manufacturer, slipping some units out of the current production line so they are genuine in every respect, they still can't be imported if they violate the trademark laws.  In other words, the only legitimate destination for those batteries would be Apple itself.  Because the manufacturer didn't have Apple's permission to use the trademarks for those side-stream batteries.

It's really pretty simple, the law exists, and it's pretty easy to read and it absolutely precludes any manufacturer from using Apple's trademarks without permission.
 
Rossman's going nowhere with this...

That honestly sounds like utter nonsense. If you buy an item from a manufacturer, the manufacturer doesn't get a say in what you do with it next. You don't need permission to import goods from a manufacturer after they've been sold by that manufacturer.

[rstofer]

Yes you do!  Read the applicable section of the US Code above.

Even if it is the very same manufacturer, slipping some units out of the current production line so they are genuine in every respect, they still can't be imported if they violate the trademark laws.  In other words, the only legitimate destination for those batteries would be Apple itself.  Because the manufacturer didn't have Apple's permission to use the trademarks for those side-stream batteries.

It's really pretty simple, the law exists, and it's pretty easy to read and it absolutely precludes any manufacturer from using Apple's trademarks without permission.
 
Rossman's going nowhere with this...

That honestly sounds like utter nonsense. If you buy an item from a manufacturer, the manufacturer doesn't get a say in what you do with it next. You don't need permission to import goods from a manufacturer after they've been sold by that manufacturer.

The manufacturer is Apple, the people building the batteries are just job shops.  The job shop doesn't own the design, they just assemble the thing under contract to Apple.  Read that again!  "Under contract to Apple".  If Won-Hong-Low wants to sell batteries into the US, they can use their own trademarks.

Without doubt, the contract doesn't allow side-streaming of product but it happens.  As long as it stays in China there isn't much to be done about it.  But when the job shop puts an Apple logo on the product and attempts to import it to the US, there's a trademark problem.

Why is everybody so resistant to just reading the law?  It's right there, there are no really big words, no Latin legalese at all and there is no reason to get confused.  They can not ship fake trademarked goods into the US - it's really just that simple.  It doesn't matter if the product is EXACTLY the same as the Apple branded product, identical in every conceivable respect, coming off the same assembly line, they can't use Apple's trademark to sell the product.  The product is fake if Apple says it's fake.

[james_s]

And the Canadian TV program Rossmann mentions at the beginning, it looks fishy to me.  It is certain that apple genius bar just run a software diagnostics to reach the repair cost conclusion, I am sure they did not open the macbook and checked all the possible hardware failures.  Rossmann finds a display cable PIN that is BENT, repairs it and the macbook comes back to life... the display error was already there when the TV crew brings the macbook to the apple store, so somebody opened the macbook before and they voluntarily or involuntarily BENT the display pin.  It sounds to me that somebody CREATED the situation to show an extreme case of "THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS" quoted by apple VS "ONE BENT PIN ON THE DISPLAY CABLE" that was fixed within 5 minutes by Rossmann...  It looks suspicious to me.  When Rossmann fixes macbooks by looking at the schematics and swapping chips, that is credible... a BENT display pin and he goes directly to it as soon as he opens the macbook??

I remember news stories years ago where they used to try to show how dishonest repair shops were by putting a blown fuse into a VCR and then taking it in for repair. Naturally most of the shops took a guess as to the cause of the fuse blowing and replaced some parts, because fuses don't just blow on their own, at least not very often. Any competent tech is going to try to find and fix the underlying fault and prevent a repeat failure. They aren't going to be expecting a deliberately induced fault.

[Mr. Scram]

The manufacturer is Apple, the people building the batteries are just job shops.  The job shop doesn't own the design, they just assemble the thing under contract to Apple.  Read that again!  "Under contract to Apple".  If Won-Hong-Low wants to sell batteries into the US, they can use their own trademarks.

Without doubt, the contract doesn't allow side-streaming of product but it happens.  As long as it stays in China there isn't much to be done about it.  But when the job shop puts an Apple logo on the product and attempts to import it to the US, there's a trademark problem.

Why is everybody so resistant to just reading the law?  It's right there, there are no really big words, no Latin legalese at all and there is no reason to get confused.  They can not ship fake trademarked goods into the US - it's really just that simple.  It doesn't matter if the product is EXACTLY the same as the Apple branded product, identical in every conceivable respect, coming off the same assembly line, they can't use Apple's trademark to sell the product.  The product is fake if Apple says it's fake.

I'm not sure whether insisting on "side-streaming" is malicious intent or being obtuse. We can go back and forth all week, but it really is no use. As far as we know Apple sold the products, so they can be shipped wherever the owner pleases. Apple doesn't have a say in where its products get shipped after selling them.

[Mr. Scram]

As tempers are flaring I thought I'd do a little fact finding. According to a page written by a law firm specializing in US trademark law it turns out that the procedure for seizing goods is well defined and has a couple of steps. A summary would be below.

*Customs suspects counterfeit goods and seizes them and notifies the importer. The importer has 30 days to deny the counterfeit nature of the goods or otherwise loses them.
*Customs then proceeds to inform the copyright owner that the goods will be released to the importer after 30 days and  provides a sample of the goods to the copyright holder. The copyright owner then has to both file a demand for the exclusion and pay a bond that will cover any losses the importer may suffer when the goods turn out not to infringe copyright.
*Both parties then have an additional 30 days for discovery and submission of legal briefs.  The burden of proof is on the party claiming that importation contains piratical goods.
*The Commissioner of Customs will receive the evidence and decide whether trademark has been infringed.

Note the third point, which is copied verbatim from the article linked. It appears that it is indeed Apple upon whom the burden of proof rests.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=22d97bbe-887c-4740-9af5-0b6e9e75a961

[nctnico]

The manufacturer is Apple, the people building the batteries are just job shops.  The job shop doesn't own the design, they just assemble the thing under contract to Apple.  Read that again!  "Under contract to Apple".

Sorry but this is just an assumption to hyperbole your remark to be true. According to Louis' video the batteries are genuine Apple products sold by Apple and that is the only factual information we have right now. Unless you have more knowledge by investigating the actual batteries now held by customs your remarks are nothing more than pure speculation.

[rstofer]

The manufacturer is Apple, the people building the batteries are just job shops.  The job shop doesn't own the design, they just assemble the thing under contract to Apple.  Read that again!  "Under contract to Apple".

Sorry but this is just an assumption to hyperbole your remark to be true. According to Louis' video the batteries are genuine Apple products sold by Apple and that is the only factual information we have right now. Unless you have more knowledge by investigating the actual batteries now held by customs your remarks are nothing more than pure speculation.

Then all we have to do is wait a couple of months and see how it works out.  Win or lose, Rossman will post something about it!

[Stray Electron]

According to Louis' video the batteries are genuine Apple products sold by Apple and that is the only factual information we have right now.

   You'd better go back and listen to Louis' rant again. He never says that they ARE genuine Apple products, he says that they could be.   Big difference!

   I also wouldn't put a lot of trust into what Louis says as being entirely "factual"!

[Beamin]

A follow up video where apple wants 1200 or 780 or both to do a 2 min repair:

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

They can not ship fake trademarked goods into the US - it's really just that simple.  It doesn't matter if the product is EXACTLY the same as the Apple branded product, identical in every conceivable respect, coming off the same assembly line, they can't use Apple's trademark to sell the product.  The product is fake if Apple says it's fake.

Then this business is illegal: https://www.vegeuk.com/en_uk/

VEGE is one of the world’s largest independent aftermarket suppliers of remanufactured petrol and diesel engines.  We also offer remanufactured cylinderheads, turbochargers, manual gearboxes, diesel injection pumps & common rail pumps & injectors on an exchange basis

And any refurbished 2nd hand Mac on ebuy too...

[wraper]

According to Louis' video the batteries are genuine Apple products sold by Apple and that is the only factual information we have right now.

   You'd better go back and listen to Louis' rant again. He never says that they ARE genuine Apple products, he says that they could be.   Big difference!

   I also wouldn't put a lot of trust into what Louis says as being entirely "factual"!

Watch again yourself.

[tooki]

You don't need permission from a party to import goods manufactured by that same party. That's not a trademark violation. It'd be totally undesirable too. Imagine every company having legal say over every product they ever sold entering or leaving the country. It'd become a shitfest.

Yes you do!  Read the applicable section of the US Code above.

Even if it is the very same manufacturer, slipping some units out of the current production line so they are genuine in every respect, they still can't be imported if they violate the trademark laws.  In other words, the only legitimate destination for those batteries would be Apple itself.  Because the manufacturer didn't have Apple's permission to use the trademarks for those side-stream batteries.

It's really pretty simple, the law exists, and it's pretty easy to read and it absolutely precludes any manufacturer from using Apple's trademarks without permission.
 
Rossman's going nowhere with this...

Yep. And as someone who is simultaneously a long-time Apple user (and small-time AAPL investor), but who also believes in fairly free markets and trade, I really don't like how the US Code above (as well as its similar equivalents everywhere else) prevent gray market imports. I absolutely believe in a company's right to protect itself against actual counterfeits, but I don't think they should have any say on gray-market imports of genuine articles. (And as I said above in more detail, I do agree with Rossmann that even parts repaired with third-party components don't suddenly become "counterfeit".)

[tooki]

Yes you do!  Read the applicable section of the US Code above.

Even if it is the very same manufacturer, slipping some units out of the current production line so they are genuine in every respect, they still can't be imported if they violate the trademark laws.  In other words, the only legitimate destination for those batteries would be Apple itself.  Because the manufacturer didn't have Apple's permission to use the trademarks for those side-stream batteries.

It's really pretty simple, the law exists, and it's pretty easy to read and it absolutely precludes any manufacturer from using Apple's trademarks without permission.
 
Rossman's going nowhere with this...

That honestly sounds like utter nonsense. If you buy an item from a manufacturer, the manufacturer doesn't get a say in what you do with it next. You don't need permission to import goods from a manufacturer after they've been sold by that manufacturer.

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.

The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.

I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/

[tooki]

A follow up video where apple wants 1200 or 780 or both to do a 2 min repair:

The key quote there is the one to the effect of "We don't offer partial repairs". And since it's an out-of-warranty product, Apple can pick and choose which types of repairs they choose to offer. For sure, I can understand that offering partial repairs exposes one to higher risk than just saying "If we're fixing it, it's to bring it up to factory condition", and they can choose to not take on that risk exposure.

An AASP (Apple authorized service provider) can choose its own policies in this regard, and still perform repairs using Apple parts, so there's an entire other avenue the CBC never explored.

<rant>As someone who worked for several AASPs in my early career, I a) understand why Apple has massively curtailed AASPs (because quite a substantial percentage offered bad customer service that sullied Apple's reputation), but b) really dislike that Apple has restricted AASPs so much, since most of them really tried hard and did good work, and it was that dealer network that held Apple afloat during all the hard times. (I simply do not approve of things like disallowing AASPs to keep service parts in stock — Apple stores have substantial spare parts inventory — or making them wait longer for parts than Apple itself must. The AASPs deserve Apple's gratitude, not a hard time.)</rant>

[wraper]

The key quote there is the one to the effect of "We don't offer partial repairs". And since it's an out-of-warranty product, Apple can pick and choose which types of repairs they choose to offer. For sure, I can understand that offering partial repairs exposes one to higher risk than just saying "If we're fixing it, it's to bring it up to factory condition", and they can choose to not take on that risk exposure.

An AASP (Apple authorized service provider) can choose its own policies in this regard, and still perform repairs using Apple parts, so there's an entire other avenue the CBC never explored.

<rant>As someone who worked for several AASPs in my early career, I a) understand why Apple has massively curtailed AASPs (because quite a substantial percentage offered bad customer service that sullied Apple's reputation), but b) really dislike that Apple has restricted AASPs so much, since most of them really tried hard and did good work, and it was that dealer network that held Apple afloat during all the hard times. (I simply do not approve of things like disallowing AASPs to keep service parts in stock — Apple stores have substantial spare parts inventory — or making them wait longer for parts than Apple itself must. The AASPs deserve Apple's gratitude, not a hard time.)</rant>

Where did you see partial repair there? Also they do things like replacing desktop Mac motherboard together with CPU and RAM even though those are removable and don't have any issue (AASP cannot order motherboard separately). Of course repair price is just ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/LwEInwvFbwk

[Richard Crowley]

The problem appears that the parts have a trademarked logo on them.  And since the trademark owner doesn't have those parts made anymore, they are ipso-facto "counterfeit".  This does NOT appear to be the same situation where legitimate Apple parts are "refurbished" and re-imported.  In that case I agree that the parts are NOT "counterfeit", but Apple is simply trying to make 3rd party repair impossible using their gang of lawyers.

If Louis imported the same parts WITHOUT the logo, then the trademark owner would have no legitimate complaint. Now, it seems likely that this isn't his first rodeo and he knows that already. Perhaps the manufacturer sent Apple-marked batteries when Louis wanted generic, no-mark parts.  In that case it would the the supplier/shipper's mistake and they should eat the loss.  Since the parts are internal, the customer will never know (or care) whether the replacement part (battery or whatever) has a piece of fruit with a bite out of it marked on the side. 

And it seems extraordinarily unlikely that Rossman is advertising that he is using "genuine" Apple parts as a marketing attempt to attract customers.  Simply offering sensible repair services (compared to the Apple customer no-service) appears to be generating more business than he can handle.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Yes you do!  Read the applicable section of the US Code above.

Even if it is the very same manufacturer, slipping some units out of the current production line so they are genuine in every respect, they still can't be imported if they violate the trademark laws.  In other words, the only legitimate destination for those batteries would be Apple itself.  Because the manufacturer didn't have Apple's permission to use the trademarks for those side-stream batteries.

It's really pretty simple, the law exists, and it's pretty easy to read and it absolutely precludes any manufacturer from using Apple's trademarks without permission.
 
Rossman's going nowhere with this...

That honestly sounds like utter nonsense. If you buy an item from a manufacturer, the manufacturer doesn't get a say in what you do with it next. You don't need permission to import goods from a manufacturer after they've been sold by that manufacturer.

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.

The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.

I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/

Doesn't this conflict with anti-monopoly law ?

[tooki]

The key quote there is the one to the effect of "We don't offer partial repairs". And since it's an out-of-warranty product, Apple can pick and choose which types of repairs they choose to offer. For sure, I can understand that offering partial repairs exposes one to higher risk than just saying "If we're fixing it, it's to bring it up to factory condition", and they can choose to not take on that risk exposure.

An AASP (Apple authorized service provider) can choose its own policies in this regard, and still perform repairs using Apple parts, so there's an entire other avenue the CBC never explored.

<rant>As someone who worked for several AASPs in my early career, I a) understand why Apple has massively curtailed AASPs (because quite a substantial percentage offered bad customer service that sullied Apple's reputation), but b) really dislike that Apple has restricted AASPs so much, since most of them really tried hard and did good work, and it was that dealer network that held Apple afloat during all the hard times. (I simply do not approve of things like disallowing AASPs to keep service parts in stock — Apple stores have substantial spare parts inventory — or making them wait longer for parts than Apple itself must. The AASPs deserve Apple's gratitude, not a hard time.)</rant>

Where did you see partial repair there?

2:40 in the video: "…we can't do partial repair." As I said, that's Apple's choice, and you can choose to go to an AASP who is willing to do a partial repair.

Also they do things like replacing desktop Mac motherboard together with CPU and RAM even though those are removable and don't have any issue (AASP cannot order motherboard separately). Of course repair price is just ridiculous.

Since the price of the service part is based on the old part being returned, whether CPU and RAM are swapped together really doesn't matter. Where it does is if an AASP fails to return the old part, triggering the no-swap prices, which are intended to prevent AASPs from buying service stock in advance, as well as to prevent boards repaired by third parties from being easy to find. I don't agree with this policy, but it is what it is. :/

Also, please don't move the goalpost.

[tooki]

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.

The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.

I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/

Doesn't this conflict with anti-monopoly law ?

I don't think so, in that anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws are designed to address an industry. Apple clearly does not hold a monopoly in any major industry they operate in (having a minority market share in personal computers, mobile phones, set-top boxes, media streaming, etc). Other vendors sell such items as well, so there's no monopoly issue here. Microsoft ran into issues with antitrust laws in the 90s when Windows and IE each held >90% market share, and it was successfully argued that Microsoft had accomplished that through anticompetitive measures like requiring PC vendors to buy a Windows license for every single PC they sold, even if the customer actually wanted an alternative OS like OS/2, OpenStep, or another UNIX variant.

[tooki]

Also they do things like replacing desktop Mac motherboard together with CPU and RAM even though those are removable and don't have any issue (AASP cannot order motherboard separately). Of course repair price is just ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/LwEInwvFbwk

P.S. Linus's iMac Pro drama never made total sense. They broke it doing a teardown (while powered up, IIRC!), causing lots of damage, and then discovered that service parts cost a LOT more than those parts do when sold as part of a finished product. The same as how if you were to buy all the spare parts to build a particular car, you'd be spending over $100,000 to build a car that costs $30,000 to buy new. So when Apple determined that they'd caused damage so extensive that the cost of parts and labor exceeded the cost of an entire new unit, that's what they recommended.

That's not news, that's how things work. Spare parts cost a LOT extra, due to the far more complex logistics and completely different cost and labor structure of spare parts.

All of us here understand why it is that when we order 10 pieces of a component from Digi-Key, we are paying far more per piece than an electronics vendor who orders 10 million pieces directly from the manufacturer. It's the exact same thing with subassemblies of a computer. But Linus's business is getting clicks, and whining about Apple is a reliable way to do that.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, in many countries, only the manufacturer (or their designated assignees) can import their products, regardless of provenance.

The concept you're referring to (that the manufacturer has no say, once they've sold it) is, in the United States, enshrined in law as the "first sale doctrine", and initially, I assumed this would apply. But apparently, it does NOT apply outside of USA, so if the sale occurred outside USA, then the US first sale doctrine cannot apply (SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and decided it cannot apply, as it would be extra-jurisdictional application of US law). And so then the aforementioned US Code section applies, regarding trademark.

I don't like this situation, but legally it's fairly clear. :/

Doesn't this conflict with anti-monopoly law ?

I don't think so, in that anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws are designed to address an industry. Apple clearly does not hold a monopoly in any major industry they operate in (having a minority market share in personal computers, mobile phones, set-top boxes, media streaming, etc). Other vendors sell such items as well, so there's no monopoly issue here. Microsoft ran into issues with antitrust laws in the 90s when Windows and IE each held >90% market share, and it was successfully argued that Microsoft had accomplished that through anticompetitive measures like requiring PC vendors to buy a Windows license for every single PC they sold, even if the customer actually wanted an alternative OS like OS/2, OpenStep, or another UNIX variant.

I simply meant that only Apple being able to import genuine Apple-branded parts is anti-competitive

[wraper]

That's not news, that's how things work. Spare parts cost a LOT extra, due to the far more complex logistics and completely different cost and labor structure of spare parts.

Who in sane mind replaces very expensive Mobo, CPU and RAM as a single part?  (again, each of those is removable). It's a freaking computer, 30 minute labor of computer technician doesn't cost several thousands of $.

discovered that service parts cost a LOT more than those parts do when sold as part of a finished product.

First Apple would not fix it at all because LCD could not be ordered. And again, why the hell they cannot replace motherboard separately and replace basically all internals when any other MFG can do this for an order of magnitude cheaper products.
Also why in the hell they do not allow AASPs to keep components in stock?

All of us here understand why it is that when we order 10 pieces of a component from Digi-Key, we are paying far more per piece than an electronics vendor who orders 10 million pieces directly from the manufacturer. It's the exact same thing with subassemblies of a computer. But Linus's business is getting clicks, and whining about Apple is a reliable way to do that.

Why basically anyone else do not have this issue while selling much wider range of products?

[nctnico]

I simply meant that only Apple being able to import genuine Apple-branded parts is anti-competitive

There is more to that. The trademark owner has a right to first sale. If a product has not been sold through an authorised channel then it may be considered counterfeit. This is to prevent producers to sell trademarked items themselves directly.