Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 182–187 | Cite as

Liabilities and responsibilities: ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs) and the distribution of counterfeit goods

Original Article

Abstract

Whether they know it or not, ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs) play a crucial role in the distribution of counterfeit goods across the globe. When these companies provide their services to product counterfeiters, they contribute to the proliferation of criminal schemes, and may expose themselves to criminal and civil liability. This article describes how OTIs can be held liable for intellectual property rights violations when they ship counterfeit goods, a subject that should raise serious concerns for OTIs. Additionally, this article proposes several practices that OTIs can adopt to mitigate their exposure to intellectual property rights liabilities. Adoption of these proposals will mean that OTIs will take on a guardianship role, actively contributing to the fight against product counterfeiting.

Keywords

Counterfeiting Intermediary liability Brand protection Shipping vessels 

References

  1. Clapp, J., and I.H. Rowlands. 2014. Corporate social responsibility. In Essential concepts of global environmental governance, ed. J.-F. Morin, and A. Orsini, 42–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. (No date). Contributory infringement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_infringement. Accessed 4 Jan 2014.
  4. ENTERPOL. 2015. 2015 Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/2015-situation-report-counterfeiting-in-european-union. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.
  5. Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp v. Concession Services Inc. 1992. 955 F.2d 1150.Google Scholar
  6. International Finance Corporation. 2009. Correspondent account KYC toolkit: A guide to common documentation requirements. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories. 1982. 456 U.S. 844.Google Scholar
  8. Kayser, S.M., Wheatley, L.J., Li, C.L., Groebl, M., Stoerzinger, G., McCulloch, A., Holmey, F., Band, E. and Fortunet, E. 2014. Combating contributory infringement on the internet. INTA Bulletin, 69(9). http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/CombatingContributoryInfringementontheInternet.aspx. Accessed 14 Sep 2014.
  9. Lichtman, D., and W. Landes. 2002. Indirect liability for copyright infringement: An economic perspective. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 16: 395–410.Google Scholar
  10. Maignan, I., B. Hillebrand, and D. McAlister. 2002. Managing socially-responsible buying: How to integrate non-economic criteria into the purchasing process. European Management Journal 20 (6): 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCue, M. 2012. Secondary liability for trademark and copyright infringement. Paper presented at the 2012 Utah Cyber Symposium. http://www.lrrlaw.com/secondary-liability-for-trademark-and-copyright-infringement-02-05-2012/#.VRFe4OHNu1k. Accessed 13 March 2015.
  12. Mullins, R.R., M. Ahearne, S.K. Lam, Z.R. Hall, and J.P. Boichuk. 2014. Know your customer: How salesperson perceptions of customer relationship quality form and influence account profitability. Journal of Marketing 78 (6): 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Park-Poaps, H., and K. Rees. 2010. Stakeholder forces of socially responsible supply chain management orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 92 (2): 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramesh, K. 2014. Role of customer relationship management in Indian banking system. International Journal of Applied Services Marketing Perspectives 2 (4): 645–650.Google Scholar
  15. Tuba, M., and C. van der Westhuizen. 2014. An analysis of the ‘know your customer’ policy as an effective tool to combat money laundering: is it about who or what to know that counts? International Journal of Public Law and Policy 4 (1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. U.S. Customs and Border Protection-Office of International Trade. 2013. Intellectual property rights fiscal year 2013 seizure statistics. http://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr/statistics. Accessed 12 Jan 2014.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product ProtectionMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations