Field of Endeavor

This article relates to any category of major intellectual property rights, and more particularly to the issue of parallel import related thereto.

Background Statement

Taken literally, the parallel import must relate to an act of import. Because it is parallel to something else, there comes the terminology of ‘parallel import.’ Accordingly, there must be an import act and another act or fact, which underlie this controversial topic. At first, we would like to list all the basic possibilities by means of practical examples which present the issue of parallel import for easy discussion and illustration. As any one knows, before there comes the issue of parallel import, we have a first trademark owner A who owns a first trademark right of a specific trademark in X country and a second trademark owner B who owns a second trademark right of a trademark the same with or similar to the specific trademark in Y country. While trademark owners A and B can be the same entity, an importer C buys and causes products labeled with the specific trademark in X country to be imported into Y country. Specifically, we have the following situations:

1. Trademark owner A is different from Trademark owner B, but they are affiliated entities. In this situation, we have two sub-situations as follows:

1. Trademark owner B can exercise its own discretion as to how to exploit the second trademark right;
2. Trademark owner B can make its decision as to how to make use of the second trademark right only after having obtained approval from Trademark owner A;

1. Trademark owner A is different from and has no affiliation with Trademark owner B, but Trademark owner A assigns the second trademark right to Trademark owner B;
2. Trademark owners A and B are of the same entity, and the goods imported into Y country are manufactured by Trademark owner A or B;
3. Trademark owners A and B are of the same entity and the goods imported into Y country are manufactured by a licensee D licensed to manufacture the imported goods by Trademark owner A or B.

Under any one of the above situations or sub-situations, we have the following two cases:

1. The quality of imported goods is the same to that of those manufactured by Trademark owner B;
2. The quality of imported goods is different from that of those manufactured by Trademark owner A.

The quality here we mean is defined to include kinds of possible and relevant definitions, e.g. the one referred to conventionally, the one associated with the service after-sale and the one guaranteed from defects…etc.

As having been disclosed, the parallel import issue must involve in an importer who imports goods from a foreign country and a trademark owner who often causes to locally provide or locally manufactures goods being thus ‘parallel’ to the imported ones. Since the imported goods generally come from a real Trademark owner A, the goods are ‘genuine’ ones. Nevertheless, such goods might harm or somehow infringe the rights of the local Trademark owner B so that these goods are frequently named non-identical products or ones from the gray market (not so black as a black market, but not so white as a white market according to Mr. M. Franzosi).

Why does the parallel import issue arouse so many and big waves in relevant societies including academy and court? It is easy to understand that a standard or convincing answer is never easily available for a controversial topic or an issue in rigorous dispute. Why is a topic or issue controversial or in rigorous dispute? It is easy to answer: the issue involved is too complex or difficult. What kind of issue can be lawfully categorized as complex or difficult? It appears that an objective answer would be: it might be one which is newly developed so that the human does not have enough experiences or time to solve it, one which seems to be so diversified that it is beyond manageable, or one which somehow exists till now but has not been strenuously tried solved. Does the parallel import issue fall into such purview? Is it possible that this terrifying issue is solved by this article?

Summary of Developments

It is therefore an object of this article to present an overview as to how the parallel import issue occurs.

It is therefore another object of this article to deal with problems from different aspects as to how the parallel import issue can be put under control.

It is still an object of this article to figure out a proposal attempted to rein in the parallel import issue.

There must be reasons on which pros and cons can base their confidences to advocate as legal and rebut as illegal the parallel import. We will list major ones of such reasons in the following for further discussions immediately succeeding thereto. The pros often apply the following reasons as their bases:

P1). Under the exhaust theory, since an IPR (intellectual property right) owner has ever enjoyed its rights at the first time of trading a product on which the relevant IPR is embodied, how the identical specific product will be ultimately disposed of is never related to the owner in any way.

Discussions: This theory will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) Any theory developed for any law cannot extend its effect beyond the realm of the country in which said any law is enacted. As such, while the domestic exhaust theory must be accepted to be correct, it is never viable for us to assert that there must come an international exhaust theory.

Q2) According to the trademark territorialism (here we use trademark merely for clarity rather than complete coverage since there are other applicable rights), the rights of a trademark owner shall not be deteriorated or abated by acts happening or performed in a foreign country. Accordingly the trademark owner should be allowed to enforce its rights through kinds of measures including seeking to enjoin the parallel import.

P2). Now that the product to be imported in parallel is genuine, how can the law unlawfully intervene in such act?

Discussions: This assertion will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) What should be discussed for the parallel import issue is whether or not such act is permissible rather than whether the imported product is genuine.

Q2) “Genuine” as a term has two meanings: one to denote genuine so far as the respective sources of origin are concerned and one denoting genuine so far as the specific local trademark owner is concerned. If whether the parallel import issue is legal can be decided by clarifying whether the imported product is “genuine”, how one can boldly allege which meaning is the correct one meant by “genuine” here?

P3). Conventionally, a trademark is designed to identify the source of origin of specific goods. If there is no problem on this primary function, why such act should be otherwise banned?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) The law not only is always behind the technology but also behind the time. The law can also get old. Although the trademark law might be initially enacted to identify the source of origin of specific goods, the trademark law need not always so play, as evidenced by the fact that it has been established that a trademark additionally can assure for the consumer the goods of a specific quality, can advertise the business of a trademark owner or can express the goodwill of the trademark owner.

Q2) It might be controversial about how to interpret the term, “source of origin.” Specifically, if we interpret it to stand for the local source, the parallel import act will become illegal automatically.

P4). The trademark law is enacted to enhance benefits of the consumers so that if the parallel import act can add furtherance in this respect, why it should be somehow curbed?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) Although it is indisputable that the trademark law is intended to enhance benefits of the general public, it is unnecessarily correct that this object is to be performed by the parallel import.

Q2) Even if the parallel import does bring forth benefits for the consumer, it never is readily clear whether the parallel import act achieves this object in the manner the trademark law is contemplated. Specifically, it might be possible that the trademark law originally tries to obtain this object through strictly monitoring the direct correlation between the goods and the business of the trademark owner. Although the time is changing, should we naturally take it for granted that the parallel import should be allowed merely because it can add the completion of this object? Is it possible there will be adverse effects if we do not follow what the trademark law is originally contemplated?

P5). The trademark law is stipulated to grant the trademark registrant an exclusive right but never an undue monopoly. If the parallel import is prohibited, the trademark owner would be likely to obtain a monopoly which is never contemplated by the trademark law.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) Permitting the parallel import might contribute to the undue monopoly, but the undue monopoly needs not necessarily be performed by the permission of parallel import.

Q2) It is unclear whether the parallel import could fall into the purview of exercising the exclusive right of a trademark owner. If yes, the parallel import issue will make no weight here. If not, is it correct that the parallel import must contribute to the formation of the undue monopoly? Are we right in correlating the parallel import with the undue monopoly?

P6). Although according to the trademark territorialism, trademark rights in different countries are mutually independent, the constructed goodwill nevertheless is integral and inseparable internationally so that the parallel import will make no damage to the trademark owner.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) If the goodwill of a specific international business is integral, how we can freely stand before the fact that one of various trademark rights in different countries has a relatively higher fame but the other one in another country only has a relatively lower reputation?

Q2) If the goodwill of a specific international business is inseparable, how we can explain the fact that even if various trademark rights in respect of the same trademark in different countries are owned by the same entity, the entity can legally possess one of them in a country on the one hand but can lawfully assign the other one trademark right in another country to the other party on the other hand?

Q3) Even if the goodwill is integral and inseparable, is it necessary that the parallel import makes no damage to the trademark owner?

P7). Even if the quality of the parallel import goods is different from that of the locally manufactured products, a specific trademark can be wonderfully construed that the goods affixing thereon the specific trademark possess a quality to a certain extent but needs not be mechanically interpreted as those labeled with the specific trademark must have the identical quality since a certain number of goods are subject to a kind of quality difference even if they come from the very same source.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) It goes without saying that an article under a trademark must have a certain quality. Nevertheless, are we confident to allege that a trademark affixed article must have a quality above a certain acceptable degree? If yes, are we correct in taking that all articles having quality above the certain degree, with or without the trademark concerned affixed, no matter what the sources of origin might be, can be freely transacted without intervening the trademark law?

Q2) If the quality problem can only exist because it is dependent on other functions of the trademark, is it proper for us to determine whether the parallel import will violate the trademark law from the viewpoint whether the parallel imported goods have a quality of a certain degree? This will be found even more disputable in view of the fact that different batches of goods from the same source of origin will or must have different ‘qualities,” macroscopically or microscopically.

P8). Price difference never is a good excuse for rejecting the parallel import since the lower the price is, the more benefits the consumer reaps.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) Theoretically, it is possible that the price for the parallel import goods is higher than that of the locally provided goods. If this is the case, is this reason still one to be held in the pro-side?

Q2) If the lower the price is, the more benefits the consumer has but the less the goods provider will reap, could we answer how or why the entire human society will ultimately have a net negative or positive?

Q3) Is the price a necessary factor for us to consider whether it is legal for the parallel import? If it is, what the role it should play in such consideration? Is it real that the lower the price is, the more benefits the consumer will reap?

P9). The importer merely imports the parallel goods and does not use in any way a specific trademark. As such, how one can have the heart to fabricate a charge for its importing act?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) As is known, the trademark owner has the exclusive right to use a trademark on the specific goods. Strictly speaking, if this is the correct definition for a trademark right, since the parallel importer does not have by itself any act in ‘applying a trademark on’ the goods, it does have not used the trademark in any way. Nevertheless, it could be more accurate or correct to define a trademark right as that the trademark owner has the exclusive right to cause a trademark to be embodied on the specific goods. If the definition can be so made, it would appear the parallel import will fall into the scope of such definition.

Q2) Although it would appear that we can establish easily the parallel import qualifies as a kind of use of trademark, the question whether the parallel import is legal still exists but does not diminish.

P10). It is never a truth that the quality of the parallel import goods is always inferior to that provided by the trademark right owner so far as the basic or conventional quality, the after-sale service or the other interests are concerned. As an example, the quality of some parallel import goods which require no after-sale service is never inferior to that manufactured by the local trademark right owner. Even if the parallel import goods require an after-sale service, it is not seldom found it is never difficult to get the goods after-sale served.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) At least in Taiwan, it has been said that the quality of some counterfeited goods is superior to that of genuine goods. If this does be the case, it would naturally appear that the quality is not a good problem to question the parallel import.

Q2) It has been proposed that what quality is meant here includes the conventional quality, after-sale maintenance, lottery-drawing…etc.. It is clear, however, the most important factor for buying a product is whether it can properly work before it becomes broken for the first time rather than whether the consumer can easily call for maintenance for the broken product. Accordingly, if the product can duly perform its work before it breaks, is it so important for us to take the after-sale service problem into consideration? This would be especially true if the product in fact requires no after-sale.

Q3) It is more interesting to consider this factor by standing before the fact that some parallel importer will perfectly perform the after-sale service. Furthermore, it is not seldom found that the after-sale service provider for the genuine goods will not necessarily reject to provide maintenance for the parallel imported goods. As such, will it be required for us to consider the after-sale service problem while seeking answers for the parallel import.

If all the above reasons applied by the pros are not so convincing or persuasive, shall the pros give up their adherence to their original position? How they can base their position on what kind of other theories or reasons? Are there really other more sound reasons for the pros to find their stout bases?

The cons often take the following reasons as their weapons to illegitimate the parallel import act:

C1). It can easily be understood that a free-riding act is never a good or legal act. Now that the parallel import is so much closely related to such free-riding act, how we can have the guts to legitimate the parallel import?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) “A poison can be used as an antidote for another poison.” By this proverb, it is meant even if what is recognized as a poison, it never means that it is totally useless. Instead, it can be an antidote or medicine for wonderfully combating another poison. This means that there must be two poisons. It is not certain whether we can list the parallel import or free-ride as a poisonous act in the society. If yes, it appears to be also uncertain whether the society exists another poison requiring this antidote. Nevertheless, according to Taoism, any law is a poison. If this is the case, the trademark law certainly is a poison. The remaining question is thus whether the free-ride or the parallel import is a correct antidote for the trademark law.

Q2) As just mentioned, whether the parallel import is good or evil is not readily apparent. Even it is evil, it is unnecessary that it must be useless. Even if it is so much closely related a free-ride, it needs not necessarily be a free-ride. Even if it is a free-ride, it needs not necessarily be a ‘poison.’

C2). A trademark is to guarantee a quality for the goods having thereon the trademark. Since the parallel import goods often have inferior quality, why our benevolent mind will permit the consumer to be possibly damaged?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) It is true a trademark is generally intended to establish a brand loyalty. It appears to have some difficulties in defeating an allegation that a brand loyalty is constructed through a specific property on the goods with a specific trademark rather than a quality thereon. Although the quality should be a factor, important, perhaps, in building up the reputation of a trademark, it needs not be able to successfully represent all what the ‘specific property’ is to express.

Q2) If the specific property rather than the quality is the determinant for correlating the consumer with the trademark, is it proper for us to be so serious as to take the quality as an important element in commenting the parallel import issue? Sometimes, the specific property is irrelevant to the quality.

Q3) Even if the parallel imported goods have an inferior quality, if the consumer obtain them in a lower price, is it necessary that the consumer thus get damaged? Is it unfair that a lower price should only be able to make an article of an inferior quality available? Is it fair that the consumer who only desire or are used to buy an article at a lower price deserve to be punished through being provided with articles of an inferior quality in order to ‘wake them up’ some day to respect or to examine carefully whether what they are to buy or have just bought is genuine or not?

C3). If the trademark owner is not properly protected, there will be no motivation for it to duly and/or generously manage its business which will in turn cause damages to the consumer in the long run if it cannot be protected against parallel import.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) It has been similarly disputed whether the patent system does act to promote the invention. The questioner alleges that even if there is no patent protection, the manufacturer will be always driven to provide a more powerful new product in order to keep a role of leader in the relevant field (we will not involve in any more discussions here in this respect). Now that the government bestows the trademark owner a trademark right, it certainly should be protected somehow. The problem is that how we can be confident that the trademark owner has been properly protected? Is the prohibition of the parallel import a compulsory measure in protecting the trademark owner?

Q2) Is it true that if the trademark owner is unwilling to adequately operate its business, the consumer will thus be damaged eventually? Unlimited expanded populations chase limited resources on earth. Dare the trademark owner not seriously run its business if it desires its business to subsist in the long run?

C4). The conventional theory of universality had been powerfully abolished by the US Supreme Court in A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel in 1921 and 1922 Tariff Act adopting the modern theory of territoriality by which it is meant what the parallel importer does will mislead the consumer to confuse the parallel import goods with goods from the local trademark right owner. Accordingly, there is no room for parallel import to subsist.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) ‘Global village,’ a term so much bewitching, great and moving, which is said to be the spectacular trend of the marvelous future is to be carefully cast through various endeavors, e.g. the formation of a World Trade Organization. Although it has lapsed years since the United Nations has been established, the world does not appear to be more lovely. If the ideal like the global village is indeed the dream all the human being should pursue, what is the reason why we discard the theory of universality so easily? Is it real that the modern theory of territoriality is better or more correct than the theory of universality? If yes, it appears to be very interesting to realize and examine reasons or bases for comparison.

Q2) By what kinds of criteria, it is concluded that the consumer will be mislead to confuse the parallel import goods with the local trademark owner’s ones. Is our answer the same if the consumer can distinguish the parallel ones to the local ones? What the situation will be if the parallel importer has adequately delimiting the parallel ones from the local ones?

Q3) If we were to distinguish the parallel import goods from the locally supplied ones, is it a good measure to apply the modern theory of territoriality? Is the modern theory of territoriality specifically created to curb the parallel import? If the parallel import were to be prohibited, is it a right recipe for us to invent the modern theory of territoriality?

C5). According to trademark territorialism which is internationally recognized nowadays, a lawful act, i.e. buying legitimate goods in a foreign country is never a good pretext to locally legitimate an illegal act, i.e. the parallel import.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) If the exhaust theory is an internationally applicable truth and the trademark territorialism is a nationally applicable truth, why an international truth must subordinate to the national truth? Policy- or law-lobbyists, or even the law interpretation normally stand with the side where the pressure or interests originate. Is the trademark territorialism related to the parallel import? Is it possible that the trademark territorialism is derived from the jurisdiction territorialism, which means that a specific government cannot exercise its jurisdiction beyond the territory it effectively rules, which means that a trademark right owner cannot enforce its rights beyond the territory where the specific government resides? Is it possible the trademark territorialism is over-exploited if it were to serve as the basis of the parallel import? In this era for breaking down kinds of trading barriers, is it possible for the territorialism being a kind of tariff barrier to subsist in a longstanding manner?

Q2) The parallel import phenomenon includes two acts, i.e. buying legitimate goods in a foreign country and importing the bought goods into the national market. It is unclear how these two independent acts should be related? It is not readily apparent why the exhaust theory should be repealed. It is clear that the trademark owner having two local trademark rights should be separately protected in two different territories. It is not, nevertheless, necessitated that the very same single article should be protected twice in order that the trademark right owner can ‘illegally’ double reap its benefits for the very same trademark. The necessity why it must seek registered respectively in two different countries does not originate from the fault of the consumer. It is the fault of the United Nations which has not yet unified the world and ultimately requires the trademark owner to respectively register its trademark in various countries. Why is it the trademark owner rather than the consumer who could reap its interests on the fault of the United Nations?

Q3) The act of buying legitimate goods in a foreign country can be independent of or relevant to the act of importing the bought goods into the national market, depending on what viewpoint we are taking. What is the correct viewpoint we should adopt in discussing the parallel import issue?

C6). Goodwill needs not be established internationally since it is easily discernible that the goodwill can only be constructed from locally to internationally, or from a small extent to a large extent. Since it is impossible for the goodwill to be internationally uniform, it readily comes the conclusion that the goodwill cannot be internationally judged by the single standard. Since it is hardly possible for the trademark owner to build brand loyalties in different countries to the same extent exactly, it is equally impossible to legalize the parallel import without damaging the local trademark right owner somehow. Just like the government grants a patent right in exchange for a technical disclosure from the patentee, the trademark owner must ensure a guaranteed quality on its goods in exchange for the brand loyalty from the consumer.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) It is true that goodwill needs not be established internationally, but it is equally true whenever there is a parallel import issue, there always involves an inter-national trademark. It can be deduced from viewpoints having been proved in various fields of sciences that even if it is impossible for the goodwill to be internationally uniform, a model simulating what we desire to judge can be constructed by using various parameters if a single standard is impossible. If the parallel import is righteous, can we illegitimate it simply because the local trademark right owner is somehow damaged? Isn’t it a truth or natural rule in the world that the benefit of a specific person is normally based on the loss of another person?

Q2) Since a trademark owner stands at the strong side of the society, is it not an obligation that the trademark owner must ensure a guaranteed quality on its provided goods in exchange for the trademark rights conferred by the government? Is it not proper for the trademark owner to try its best efforts in order to maintain the brand loyalty from the consumer? According to Confucius, one needs not worry about being nameless but should worry about not being so learned as to possibly get famed. If the article or its quality is good enough, is it necessary for the trademark owner to strenuously run its business in order to be famous or gain benefits?

C7). A trademark per se is a symbol of advertisement which generally comes to fame through the input of money. If the parallel import were to be unconditionedly permitted to dilute the value of the trademark, is it not cruel for the law to treat the trademark owner?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) A symbol of advertisement can have two meanings. One refers to that the trademark can be famous because lots of money is used to so establish. The other is referred to that the trademark itself has the function of advertisement. As such, through the registration of the trademark, the trademark registrant obtains a vehicle of advertisement for its goods or business. According to this latter meaning, isn’t it natural that the trademark owner should pay for earning this faming vehicle through adequate measures?

Q2) If the parallel import is legitimate somehow, it will be irrelevant whether the trademark is diluted. Is a trademark diluted if the parallel import is allowed? Goods in the parallel import bear the same trademark to symbolize or advertise the same trademark which gets thus famed and should accordingly find no dilution. Isn’t it possible that if the parallel import goods are hot-sold, the very same trademark will get automatically famous rather than otherwise diluted? From this particular viewpoint, is it not lovely for the law to allow the parallel import?

C8). A trademark is used to represent a specific localized business goodwill. Even if the parallel import goods are genuine, the parallel import can never escape from being categorized as a kind of free-riding act to damage the specific goodwill.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) Theory is always different from practice. Although a local trademark should only be theoretically representative of the goodwill of a local business, it appears to have nothing to do with a differently local trademark. Nevertheless, in practice, the parallel import will not happen if two local trademarks are respectively owned by two mutually independent owners or if there does not involve two territories allowing the registrations of two trademark rights having the same or similar trademark. Accordingly, whether a trademark is used to represent a specific local goodwill appears to be unrelated to whether the parallel import should be legitimated.

Q2) The key point does not reside in whether the parallel import goods are genuine but in whether the parallel import should be legal somehow. According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a free ride is meant to be “something (as entertainment, acclaim, or a profit) obtained without the usual cost or effort.” Anything, e.g. the terms “usual,” “cost,” or “effort,” in this world is relative. How can we determine whether some standard, e.g. “usual” has been met? How about the situation will be if the parallel importer has expended or exercised some ‘unusual’ cost or effort?

C9). As is well-known, the trademark law is enacted to safeguard the public interests in addition to the protection of the trademark registrant. Although the man is born to be equal and the law must treat every national as a good resident, it is impractical for us to believe there will be no national who will act against the public interests. If we cannot make sure the public will not get confused or damaged through the parallel import, why we should allow it to legally exist, especially in view of the experience or hearsay that the goods counterfeited or parallel imported generally are inferior in quality?

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) The basic principle in the modern society is that the law never punishes the suspect. Why can we ban the parallel import simply because we are not certain whether the public will not get confused or damaged through what kind of act? Anyone’s interests are important so that interests of anyone or the public should be appropriately protected. Nevertheless, don’t we have gone too far to raise this question if we have not settled down first as to whether the parallel import will do interests for or against the public or the consumer?

Q2) It should be true that some experience or hearsay that the goods counterfeited or parallel imported have an inferior quality. It is also equally true that one is not so much experienced if one does not hear or causes to be experienced that the counterfeited or parallel imported goods have a quality higher than that of the genuine ones.

C10). It is easy to determine that the parallel import is illegal simply through the phenomenon of price difference in view of the simple adage that whatever you are given, you must pay for it in the long run.

Discussions: This reason will find short of strength if questioned as follows:

Q1) It is a general concept that a higher price needs not guarantee a higher quality for a product. Quality is determined by cost, technique, management, promotion…etc.. In view of the shortage of the resources on earth, one who should be encouraged should be the one who can offer the same product at a lower price, which is wonderfully satisfied if the parallel import is proved to be legitimate somehow.

Q2) If the price is so important, can we legitimate the parallel import if the selling price of the parallel imported goods is not lower than that of the locally supplied ones? If it is believed that under this situation (the selling price of the parallel import goods is higher), the parallel import is legal, does it mean that the price is the core of the parallel import issue? Is there any one who really believes that the essential factor determining whether the parallel import issue is legitimate is the price?

If all the above reasons applied by the cons are also found unconvincing or unpersuasive, shall the cons also give up their adherence to their original position? Again, how they can base their position on what kind of other theories or reasons? Are there really other more encouraging reasons for the cons to construct their strong defenses?

If neither the pros nor the cons can find vigorous foundations for their position or rigorous arguments to conquer the opponent, how the human society should treat the parallel import phenomenon? Certainly, we can let it be because the earth will still revolves around the sun if we cannot provide a definite or convincing solution to be followed. Some countries permit while other ones ban. Diversifications and complexes make a beautiful world possible since the monotone easily dulls the life of the human being and possibly raises the unemployment rate. From this point of view, what we are endeavoring to solve the confusing situation the parallel import issue is causing is some kind of evilness. If it happens that this article help clarify or even solve the dilemma the parallel import phenomenon traps, governments on earth should carefully wonder and try hard to figure out whether the dilemma is a mishap or a beautiful trap the God has graciously generated?

Brief Items to be Discussed for Presenting Issues We Concern

*Relationship among relevant parties

*15 USC 1125(a), 19 USC 526 & 19 CFR 133.21

*How does the parallel import issue interact with related laws?

*Is a new model possible to properly regulate the parallel import phenomenon?

*How does the new model regulate illustrated examples?