![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Charles A. Weiss
To download a PDF version of this article, please click here.
Second Circuit Rules Copyright Owners May Block
Importation of Articles They Made and Sold Overseas, Reaching Issue that
Divided Supreme Court last Term
Among the rights enjoyed by copyright owners is the right to
block importation into the United States of infringing goods. 17 U.S.C. §
602. Among the rights enjoyed by lawful purchasers of copyrighted
articles is the right to resell that article to others, codified in the
first sale doctrine. 17 U.S.C. § 109.
What rule controls when someone buys a genuine copyrighted
article that was manufactured outside the United States and then imports
it without authorization of the U.S. copyright holder? According to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the answer is the latter,
i.e., the first sale doctrine does not apply in these circumstances and
the importer is liable to the copyright owner for infringement.
The conduct at issue in the Second Circuit case might be called
textbook arbitrage. Because U.S. editions are sometimes more expensive
than foreign editions of the same work, it is possible to profit by
purchasing copies of a foreign edition overseas, bringing them to the
U.S., and reselling them in competition with the more expensive U.S.
edition. That's what Mr. Supap Kirtsaeng did with textbooks printed by
the publisher John Wiley & Sons, which sued him for copyright
infringement. The success of Wiley's suit and the propriety of
Kirtsaeng's actions turned in large part on the scope of the first sale
doctrine, which applies to copies "lawfully made under this title [i.e.,
the U.S. Copyright Act]." 17 U.S.C. § 109. Wiley contended that its
foreign editions were not made "under" the provisions of the U.S.
copyright laws because they were printed overseas, i.e.,
outside the territorial scope of the U.S. copyright laws. Kirtsaeng
countered that the first sale doctrine was not so limited, and that
copyright law cannot prohibit the purchaser of a legitimate copy of a
tangible copyrighted item from reselling the item.
The trial court ruled in Wiley's favor and entered judgment
against Kirtsaeng for $600,000 for willful infringement of the
copyrights on eight Wiley textbooks. Kirtsaeng appealed to the Second
In a decision released on August 15, 2011, the Second Circuit
held that while the interpretation of the statutory phrase "lawfully
made under this title" was a "close call" and "particularly difficult,"
the interpretation that best aligned with the Copyright Act and Supreme
Court dicta was that it means works manufactured in the United States.
Therefore, the first sale doctrine did not apply to foreign-manufactured
works, and copyright owners have the right to block the importation
into the U.S. of such works.
This issue recently divided the U.S. Supreme Court in a similar
case involving Swiss watches. In that case, the retailer Costo was sued
for copyright infringement by watchmaker Omega for selling genuine Omega
watches that were imported into the U.S. through gray-market channels.
As in the Wiley case, Costco argued that its actions were noninfringing
under the first sale doctrine because the watches were first sold
(albeit in Europe) by Omega, with Omega responding that the first sale
doctrine did not apply because the watches were not made or sold in the
United States. The Ninth Circuit ruled in Omega's favor, and Costo
sought review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the
case, but sat with only eight Justices because Justice Kagan was
recused (having filed a brief expressing the views of the United States
when she was Solicitor General). The result was a 4-4 tie, which under
Supreme Court practice results in no opinion and a nonprecedential
affirmance of the judgment under review.
The Second Circuit decided the issue in the same way as did the
Ninth Circuit, with the result that two of the most influential circuits
in the copyright arena are in agreement that the first-sale doctrine
does not apply in these circumstances.
Mr. Kirtsaeng can seek further review of this decision by the
full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court, so the panel decision may not
be the last word on this issue.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Supap Kirtsaeng, No. 09-4896, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16830
(2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2011). [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) [enhanced version / unenhanced version], aff'd by an equally divided Court, 131 S. Ct. 565 (2010). [enhanced version / unenhanced version]
Mr. Weiss, the author of this article, filed an amicus
brief in the Second Circuit on behalf of the New York Intellectual
Property Law Association in support of John Wiley & Sons.Legal Notices© 2004-2011 Kenyon & Kenyon LLP. All rights reserved.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Copyright Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Copyright Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Copyright Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate