KIWI SHOE-SHINE PRODUCT BY JOHNSON AND SONS/ USA VS SINT MAARTEN (CHINESE MERCHANTS AND RETAILERS -FEBRUARY 2014) The depth and trajectory of the investigation in the case lacks the proportionality and the scope for a court decision of such widespread impact. Such rampage conducted in a unexplainable, shady, obscure, and suspicious manner cannot undoubtedly give rise to further investigation involving the discovery and decision leading to investigation and confiscation of shoe-shine products from the shelves of local retailers. Its ambush and very predatory. Men walking into retail outlets without uniform or badges, bagging items from the shelves, and leaving behind a document, without a word. Without communicating what was happening and without showing the grocer what an authentic item looks like, its features, its logo, its trademark, and ensignia , -in comparison to the ones removed from the shelves. In earnest-speaking, are the items in question (shoe-polish, and shoe-paste) which were removed from the shelves the same ones in this court today? Or are the items in this court today, products which the Marshall M.J. Rabess had in the trunk of his car? Whether two products closely resemble each other visually or or have likeness of ingredients and composition-wise has not been fully established, as there are no research and development reports and cognitive-tests from the advertising departments, with results from different culture and tests. Recently i came across a case in Sint Maarten where two business-names to be used on business-signs were too identical, and one was rejected. Therefore where is that conclusion in this case? Precedence and past court decisions in the United States involving the same Johnson and Sons, donot necessarily apply in our country since we are crossing culture, jurisdiction, and scientific competence among other evidentiary deficiencies. Lack of cognitive-tests and the inability of our grocers to keep track of visual advertising of every product patent or trademark under Johnson and Sons and KIWI, should be considered as common and reasonable. Companies which donot own, operate, or manufacture in our country hold some type of rights, but our citizens and retailers are not aware what the logo or other designs on the package looks like, especially since companies may have different factories in different country, and in some cases, the logo may be different as well,- to please cultural differences. It is a fact of life, and large companies must find ways to cope with this changing phenomenom. However, to victimize the retailers is injustice, since as i have explained, not all grocers are marketers, most have moved from entrepreneurship to self-employed, rather than from the notary office to grocery-owner. Your honor, i spoke to some of the more than six retailers affected by the decision of the court about how they felt of your court allowing the Marshall M.J.Rabess to confiscate and issue fines to these establishments. All establishment in this report happen to be managed by people of Chinese origins. After reviewing the manner and procedures those confiscation of goods were conducted, im convinced that Marshall Rabess acted irresponsibly, and disobeyed adherence to procedures and laws safeguarding and protecting both the retailer and the goods to be confiscated. As a matter of jurisdiction, the products were manufactured, packaged, labeled and distributed in a foreign-country and after various transactions by foreign distributors, wholesalers and entrepreneurs, they were consolidated into containers destined for Sint Maarten among many other products. 90% of each item in our retailers shelf and in the whole island undergoes and follows more or less the same route to the grocery shelves. The customs and Duanne know this as well. Although an agreement may or may not exist among patent and trademark offices in various countries, you can see that the jurisdiction of the investigation is in the United States, and the penalties and fines should be to the distributors in the United States. Locally, there was no warning,-such actions of surprise are only conducted when the product is being manufactured, packaged and or labeled in our country, such as cases where government are afraid of destruction of tools and the relocation of operation. The action is prejudicious and insinuates culpability and guilt on the part of the Marshall. There are no known local distributors in Sint Maarten, and if there is, then we have not seen any advertisement in our media. Therefore we dont have the jurisdiction and competence, only the order from outside. We dont even have precedence cases for similar products, and we dont have documentation as to valid and updated copyright, logo, and trademark coverage by Johnson and Sons in the Old Netherlands Antilles, nor which type of coverage and protection. Does it includes only products with the Johnson and Sons logo on each and every product or everything under Johnson and Sons? And how this applies in the new Sint Maarten? We dont have the competence to evaluate composition and ingredient research and no documentation on cognitive-test of our culture and our people, as to which two products have similar appearances and to which extent. Although it was distributed by an entrepreneur from a consolidated container, it was not an edible product and the grocer would easily missed such a product from daily checking and inspection because it didnot have an expiration date. Most grocers and packers have no knowledge of logo, trademarks, patents and copyrights. This absent-mindedness and lack to detail is reality, and is forgiven in our culture because the business-license allows grocers in Sint Maarten to sell generic merchandise and merchandise of different brands, and lower prices, and maybe lower qualities as well. The reputation of each grocery is determine at the end of the year when and if the clientele grows and profit is made. The grocers themselves by their action determines the sink and swim, it is the principle of liasse fairez and competition in action. A landmark decision in Sint Maarten is the Hard Rock Cafe which imported t-shirts with Hard Rock Cafe labels produced in China and other countries. It is understandable in such case because everyone who knows Hard Rock, expects to buy 100% authentic Hard rock product in such an outlet. The retailers in questions donot have a store named Johnson and Sons, nor Kiwi. Customers expect to find generic products on the shelves and use their own judgement and decision-making while purchasing items from the shelf. Your honor, i hereby recapitulate that the grocers and retailers in questions were ambushed and unjustifiably targeted by someone in a medium-size operation, disregarding the identity and uniqueness of each individual business and set of circumstances, and disrespecting our local tradition and way of conducting business by our local retailers and grocers on Sint Maarten. It was oldtime whistleblowing, which we believe is no longer used as our country has set preferences for actions which serves to benefit our retailers and conducive to the growth of our economy, rather than the few bent on corruption and criminality. We recap on the following items which we believe as to be our countrys prerogative while abiding by international patents and trademark agreements. 1) Product in question originated in another country and entered into our country, managed by entrepreneurs in consolidated containers. Consolidated meaning an item among many others, from different distributors, packed into a container destined for Sint Maarten. The retailer in Sint Maarten was in no way involved in the design, research and development, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, nor advertising and distribution of the product prior to consolidation nor after. Retailer had no reason to suspect the shoe-shine product because the local salesman sold other products and items as well, and he is known to them, although for most retailers interviewed it was the first-time they had purchase shoe-shine products from him. (GMT-COLEBAY 5444365). Retailer has a right to sell generic products and products of less-advertised brands and of various quality from different country. 90% of product on local retailers shelf and in the entire island share same similarity. 2) Reasonableness and procedural error on the part of the Marshall donot guarantee fair treatment and integrity in safeguarding evidence in question. In their opinion Marshall M.J. Rabess conducted himself as a magician performing sleight-of-hand. He didnot put an authentic product next to the product in question which was removed from the shelf and explained to the retailer or grocer what was the problem. The grocers and retailers know little of JOHNSON AND SONS and the law firm JAMES MARTIN & ASSOCIATES. Retailers claim not to know about the type of coverage and how detail the trademark and patent rights of JOHNSON AND SONS is in the Netherlands Antilles. They are of the opinion that this court is opening Pandoras box for cases which it is not able to handle. Discussions among themselves include analogy of how TOYOTA COMPANY, INC. can order the confiscation of TOYOTA cars from local car-dealers since some cars have circumvented region-specific manufacturing regulations by using non-Japanese parts or non-Toyota sanctioned-parts and labor in their TOYOTA vehicles. In our case it is not about labor or the percentage of part used in manufacturing, but rather on whether our local retailers were aware about any problems pertaining to what was considered trade-mark infringement or other type of or similar infringements. 2. B) The reasonableness behind the determination by an average person of product-origin and authenticity by just plain sight. If i was to present two items carrying the word KIWI and laid them side by side in front of you, on your desk, would you be able to tell me which one was authentic-KIWI from JOHNSON AND SONS? Which of the two could be authentic-JOHNSON AND SONS rights-protected or which one could have been produced by JOHNSON AND SONS in another country outside the USA? There have not been sufficient advertisement for distinctive awareness for this particular product and in our country in general for consumers to know that KIWI is a product brand, rather than a word to identify substantive product content. When we see KIWI on a can of shoe-paste, what does it means to us? Has JOHNSON AND SONS been able to implant into our subconscious mind that of two or three products in similar size cans with the same color-lettering on the surface of the can, and with the word KIWI engraved into them, to that particular can, the word KIWI is a special, and distinctive product than the other cans, and that we should not recognize nor call all shoe-shine paste in the other similarly-looking cans KIWI? We have to be sincere, the retailers and grocers were not even offered that opportunity since Marshall M.J. Rabess bagged all the items and left without giving the retailer the benefit of comparison of products nor a warning to prevent recurrence of trademark or patent infringement. He didnot walk with an authentic KIWI product nor any product bearing the word KIWI when he walked into the retailers to confiscate their products. In our opinion he should have brought what he considered to be a sample of the authentic JOHNSON AND SONS-registered product into every retailer and laid them next to the ones to be confiscated from the retailers, explaining how to recognize or tell one from the other. This he didnot do. 3) We feel that a warning to the local retail-community is needed, but the imposition of a fine would be too heavy a penalty, and we will have to ask for an investigation as to whether the monetary fine is an or the ulterior motive. We thank you your honor. On Behalf of all the grocers on Sint Maarten whom feel targeted and victimized. Mr. JACINTO MOCK--------*
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 02:17:06 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015