[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12714-S12718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP COUNTERFEITING IN MANUFACTURED GOODS ACT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 278, S. 1699.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1699) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit
marks.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an
amendment.
S. 1699
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act''.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the United States economy is losing millions of dollars
in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs because of the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of counterfeit goods;
(2) the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimates
that counterfeiting costs the United States $200 billion
annually;
(3) counterfeit automobile parts, including brake pads,
cost the auto industry alone billions of dollars in lost
sales each year;
(4) counterfeit products have invaded numerous industries,
including those producing auto parts, electrical appliances,
medicines, tools, toys, office equipment, clothing, and many
other products;
(5) ties have been established between counterfeiting and
terrorist organizations that use the sale of counterfeit
goods to raise and launder money;
(6) ongoing counterfeiting of manufactured goods poses a
widespread threat to public health and safety; and
(7) strong domestic criminal remedies against
counterfeiting will permit the United States to seek stronger
anticounterfeiting provisions in bilateral and international
agreements with trading partners.
SEC. 2. TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT MARKS.
Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended by inserting after ``such
goods or services'' the following: ``, or intentionally
traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers,
wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes,
containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or
packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit
mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to
cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,''.
(2) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The following property shall be subject to
forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall
exist in such property:
``(A) Any article bearing or consisting of a counterfeit
mark used in committing a violation of subsection (a).
``(B) Any property used, in any manner or part, to commit
or to facilitate the commission of a violation of subsection
(a).
``(2) The provisions of chapter 46 of this title relating
to civil forfeitures, including section 983 of this title,
shall extend to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this
section. At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, the
court, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United
States, shall order that any forfeited article bearing or
consisting of a counterfeit mark be destroyed or otherwise
disposed of according to law.
``(3)(A) The court, in imposing sentence on a person
convicted of an offense under this section, shall order, in
addition to any other sentence imposed, that the person
forfeit to the United States--
``(i) any property constituting or derived from any
proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the
result of the offense;
``(ii) any of the person's property used, or intended to be
used, in any manner or part, to commit, facilitate, aid, or
abet the commission of the offense; and
``(iii) any article that bears or consists of a counterfeit
mark used in committing the offense.
``(B) The forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A),
including any seizure and disposition of the property and any
related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be
governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section.
Notwithstanding section 413(h) of that Act, at the conclusion
of the forfeiture proceedings, the court shall order that any
forfeited article or component of an article bearing or
consisting of a counterfeit mark be destroyed.
``(4) When a person is convicted of an offense under this
section, the court, pursuant to sections 3556, 3663A, and
3664, shall order the person to pay restitution to the owner
of the mark and any other victim of the offense as an offense
against property referred to in section 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii).
``(5) The term `victim', as used in paragraph (4), has the
meaning given that term in section 3663A(a)(2).''.
(3) Subsection (e)(1) is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) a spurious mark--
``(i) that is used in connection with trafficking in any
goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges,
emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases,
hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
``(ii) that is identical with, or substantially
indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal
register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so
registered;
``(iii) that is applied to or used in connection with the
goods or services for which the mark is registered with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, or is applied to
or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge,
emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag,
documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is
designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in
connection with the goods or services for which the mark is
registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office;
and
``(iv) the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to
cause mistake, or to deceive; or''; and
(B) by amending the matter following subparagraph (B) to
read as follows:
``but such term does not include any mark or designation used
in connection with goods or services, or a mark or
designation applied to labels, patches, stickers, wrappers,
badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans,
cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or
nature used in connection with such goods or services, of
which the manufacturer or producer was, at the time of the
manufacture or production in question, authorized to use the
mark or designation for the type of goods or services so
manufactured or produced, by the holder of the right to use
such mark or designation.''.
(4) Section 2320 is further amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Nothing in this section shall entitle the United
States to bring a criminal cause of action under this section
for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended
to deceive or confuse.''.
SEC. 3. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
(a) Review and Amendment.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the United States
Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under
section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in
accordance with this section, shall review
[[Page S12715]]
and, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines
and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any
offense under section 2318 or 2320 of title 18, United States
Code.
(b) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission
may amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the
Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the
authority under that section had not expired.
(c) Responsibilities of United States Sentencing
Commission.--In carrying out this section, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall determine whether the definition
of ``infringement amount'' set forth in application note 2 of
section 2B5.3 of the Federal sentencing guidelines is
adequate to address situations in which the defendant has
been convicted of one of the offenses listed in subsection
(a) and the item in which the defendant trafficked was not an
infringing item but rather was intended to facilitate
infringement, such as an anti-circumvention device, or the
item in which the defendant trafficked was infringing and
also was intended to facilitate infringement in another good
or service, such as a counterfeit label, documentation, or
packaging, taking into account cases such as U.S. v. Sung, 87
F.3d 194 (7th Cir. 1996).
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the American
economy, our workers, and our consumers. I am pleased that the Senate
has today taken an important step towards beating back that threat, by
passing S. 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.''
Senator Specter is the principal cosponsor, and I know that he shares
with me the conviction that this bill that will give law enforcement
improved tools to fight counterfeit trademarks, and that it could work
a significant change in the efforts to combat this type of theft. So
are all our cosponsors, and I thank them: Senators Alexander, Bayh,
Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch,
Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich.
It is all too easy to think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime,
a means of buying sunglasses or a purse that would otherwise strain a
monthly budget. The reality, however, is far different. According to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, counterfeiting costs the U.S.
between $200 billion and $250 billion annually. In Vermont, companies
like Burton Snowboards, Vermont Tubbs, SB Electronics, and Hubbardton
Forge--all of which have cultivated their good names through pure hard
work and creativity--have felt keenly the damage of intellectual
property theft on their businesses. This is wrong. It is simply not
fair to the businesses who innovate and to the people whose economic
livelihoods depend on these companies.
The threat posed by counterfeiting is more than a matter of
economics. Inferior products can threaten the safety of those who use
them. When a driver taps a car's brake pedals there should be no
uncertainty about whether the brake linings are made of compressed
grass, sawdust, or cardboard. Sick patients should not have to that
they will ingest counterfeit prescription drugs and, at best, have no
effect. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for
counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Knock-off parts have
even been found in NATO helicopters. What's more, according to
Interpol, there is an identifiable link between counterfeit goods and
the financing of terrorist operations.
S. 1699 makes several improvements to the U.S. Code. The bill
strengthens 18 U.S.C. 2318, the part of the criminal code that deals
with counterfeit goods and services, to make it a crime to traffic in
counterfeit labels or packaging, even when counterfeit labels or
packaging are shipped separately from the goods to which they will
ultimately be attached. Savvy counterfeiters have exploited this
loophole to escape liability. This bill closes that loophole.
The bill will also make counterfeit labels and goods, and any
equipment used in facilitating a crime under this part of the code,
subject to forfeiture upon conviction. Any forfeited goods or machinery
would then be destroyed, and the convicted infringer would have to pay
restitution to the lawful owner of the trademark. Finally, although the
bill is tough, it is also fair. It states that nothing ``shall entitle
the United States to bring a cause of action under this section for the
repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or
confuse.'' It is truly just the bad actors we want to punish.
Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their
creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As
legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the
tools needed to capture these thieves. I am committed to this effort,
and will continue to sponsor legislation that will support law
enforcement in the protection of the intellectual property rights that
are so important to the American economy and its creative culture.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about S.
1699, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, a bill
I have sponsored with Senator Leahy and fifteen other cosponsors--
Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin,
Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich.
The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act addresses a problem
that has reached epidemic proportions as a result of a loophole in our
criminal code: the trafficking in counterfeit labels. Criminal law
currently prohibits the trafficking in counterfeit trademarks ``on or
in connection with goods or services.'' However, it does not prohibit
the trafficking in the counterfeit marks themselves. As such, there is
nothing in current law to prohibit an individual from selling
counterfeit labels bearing otherwise protected trademarks within the
United States.
This loophole was exposed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in
United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247--10th Cir. 2000. In this case,
the United States prosecuted the defendant for manufacturing and
selling counterfeit Dooney & Bourke labels that third parties could
later affix to generic purses. Examining Title 18, section 2320, of the
United States Code, the Tenth Circuit held that persons who sell
counterfeit trademarks that are not actually attached to any ``goods or
services'' do not violate the federal criminal trademark infringement
statute. Since the defendant did not attach counterfeit marks to
``goods or services,'' the court found that the defendant did not run
afoul of the criminal statute as a matter of law. Thus, someone caught
red-handed with counterfeit trademarks walked free.
S. 1699 closes this loophole by amending Title 18, section 2320 of
the United States Code to criminally prohibit the trafficking, or
attempt to traffic, in ``labels, patches, stickers'' and generally any
item to which a counterfeit mark has been applied. In so doing, S. 1699
provides U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors with the means not only
to prosecute individuals trafficking in counterfeit goods or services,
but also individuals trafficking in labels, patches, and the like that
are later applied to goods.
Congress must act expeditiously to protect U.S. held trademarks to
the fullest extent of the law. The recent ten count indictment of four
Massachusetts residents of conspiracy to traffic in approximately $1.4
million of counterfeit luxury goods in the case of U.S. v. Luong et
al., 2005 D. Mass. underscores the need for this legislation. According
to the indictment, law enforcement officers raided self-storage units
earlier this year and found the units to hold approximately 12,231
counterfeit handbags; 7,651 counterfeit wallets; more than 17,000
generic handbags and wallets; and enough counterfeit labels and
medallions to turn more than 50,000 generic handbags and wallets into
counterfeits. Although the U.S. Attorneys Office was able to pursue
charges of trafficking and attempting to traffic in counterfeit
handbags and wallets, they could not bring charges for trafficking and
attempting to traffic in the more than 50,000 counterfeit labels and
medallions. As such, these defendants will escape prosecution that
would have otherwise been illegal if they had only been attached to an
otherwise generic bag. This simply does not make sense and had the Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005 been in effect at the
time of indictment, U.S. prosecutors would have been able to bring
charges against the defendants for trafficking and attempting to
traffic in not only counterfeit goods, but also counterfeit labels.
As Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said, ``Those who
manufacture and sell counterfeit goods steal business from honest
merchants, confuse or
[[Page S12716]]
defraud honest consumers, and illegally profit on the backs of honest
American workers and entrepreneurs.'' This point is underscored by the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimate that trafficking in
counterfeit goods costs the United States approximately $200 to $250
million annually. With each passing year, the United States loses
millions of dollars in tax revenues to the sale of counterfeit goods.
Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and
distributed in the United States costs American workers tens of
thousands of jobs. With counterfeit goods making up a growing 5-7
percent of wor1d trade, this is a problem that we can no longer ignore.
To be sure, counterfeiting is not limited to the popular designer
goods that we have all seen sold on comers of just about every major
metropolitan city in the United States. Counterfeiting has a
devastating impact on a broad range of industries. In fact, for almost
every legitimate product manufactured and sold within the United
States, there is a parallel counterfeit product being sold for no more
than half the price. These counterfeit products range from children's
toys to clothing to Christmas tree lights. More frightening are the
thousands of counterfeit automobile parts, batteries, and electrical
equipment that are being manufactured and placed into the stream of
commerce with each passing day. I am told that the level of
sophistication in counterfeiting has reached the point that you can no
longer distinguish between the real and the counterfeit good or label
with the naked eye. However, just because these products look the same
does not mean that they have the same quality characteristics. The
counterfeit products are not subject to the same quality controls of
legitimate products, resulting in items that are lower in quality and
likely to fall apart. In fact, counterfeit products could potentially
kill unsuspecting American consumers.
In addition to closing the ``counterfeit label loophole,'' the Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act strengthens the criminal code
and provides heightened penalties for those trafficking in counterfeit
marks. Current law does not provide for the seizure and forfeiture of
counterfeit trademarks, whether they are attached to goods or not.
Therefore, many times such counterfeit goods are seized one day, only
to be returned and sold to an unsuspecting public. To ensure that
individuals engaging in the practice of trafficking in counterfeit
marks cannot reopen their doors, S. 1699 establishes procedures for the
mandatory seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of counterfeit marks
prior to a conviction. Further, it provides for procedures for the
mandatory forfeiture and destruction of property derived from or used
to engage in the trafficking of counterfeit marks.
In crafting the language in Section 2(b)(I)(B) of this bill
pertaining to the forfeiture authority of the U.S. Department of
Justice, Senator Leahy and I discussed the scope of the facilitation
language, which parallels the drug and money laundering forfeiture
language in 21 U.S.C. 853 and 18 U.S.C. 982, respectively, and how it
might relate to Internet marketplace companies, search engines, and
ISPs. Specifically, we were aware of concerns regarding the potential
misapplication of the facilitation language in Section 2(b)(1)(B) to
pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against responsible Internet
marketplace companies that serve as third party intermediaries to
online transactions. To this end, I would like to make it clear for the
record that this bill is not intended to apply to ``good actor''
Internet service providers that serve as third party intermediaries to
online transactions and take demonstrable steps to prevent the exchange
or trafficking of counterfeit goods on their networks.
Does Senator Leahy agree?
Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator.
Section 2(b)(1)(B) authorizes U.S. Attorneys to pursue civil in rem
forfeiture proceedings against ``any property used, in any manner or
part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of
subsection (a).'' The intent of this language is to provide attorneys
and prosecutors with the authority to bring a civil forfeiture action
against the property of bad actors who are facilitating trafficking or
attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. The forfeiture authority in
Section 2(b)(1)(B) cannot be used to pursue forfeiture and seizure
proceedings against the computer equipment, website or network of
responsible Internet marketplace companies, who serve solely as a
third-party to transactions and do not tailor their services or their
facilities to the furtherance of trafficking or attempts to traffic in
counterfeit marks. However, these Internet marketplace companies must
make demonstrable good faith efforts to combat the use of their systems
and services to traffic in counterfeit marks. Companies must establish
and implement procedures to take down postings that contain or offer to
sell goods, services, labels, and the like in violation of this act
upon being made aware of the illegal nature of these items or services.
It is the irresponsible culprits that must be held accountable. Those
who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only
at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is
important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to
capture these thieves.
It is also my understanding that the U.S. Sentencing Commission
recently promulgated new Federal sentencing guidelines to count for the
changes in how intellectual property crimes are committed. Could the
Senator from Pennsylvania clarify for the Record why we have authorized
the U.S. Sentencing Commission to further amend the Federal sentencing
guidelines and policy statements for crimes committed in violation of
Title 18, section 2318 or 2320, of the United States Code?
Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator is aware, the Sentencing Commission has
sought to update the Federal sentencing guidelines upon the periodic
directive of Congress to reflect and account for changes in the manner
in which intellectual property offenses are committed. The recent
amendments to which you refer were promulgated by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to the authorization in the Family Entertainment
and Copyright Act of 2005, also known as FECA. These amendments to the
Federal sentencing guidelines, which took effect on October 24, 2005,
address changes in penalties and definitions for intellectual property
rights crimes, particularly those involving copyrighted pre-release
works and issues surrounding ``uploading.'' For example, these
guidelines provide for a 25-percent increase in sentences for offenses
involving pre-release works. In addition, the Commission revised its
definition of ``uploading'' to ensure that the guidelines are keeping
up with technological advances in this area.
I would like to make it clear for the record that the directive to
the Sentencing Commission in Section 3 of S. 1699 is not meant as
disapproval of the Commission's recent actions in response to FECA.
Rather, Section 3 covers other intellectual property rights crimes that
Congress believes it is time for the Commission to revisit.
Specifically, Section 3 directs the Commission to review the
guidelines, and particularly the definition of ``infringement amount,''
to ensure that offenses involving low-cost items like labels, patches,
medallions, or packaging that are used to make counterfeit goods that
are much more expensive, are properly punished. It also directs the
Commission to ensure that the penalty provisions for offenses involving
all counterfeit goods or services, or devices used to facilitate
counterfeiting are properly addressed by the guidelines. As it did in
response to the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 and FECA, I am
confident that the Commission will ensure that the Federal sentencing
guidelines provide adequate punishment and deterrence for these very
serious offenses and I look forward to the Commission's response to
this directive.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Specter for that clarification. As he is
aware, we have received over a dozen letters in support of S. 1699, the
Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005. I ask unanimous
consent to have several of these letters printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S12717]]
Lexmark International Inc.,
Lexington, KY, November 4, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to the members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee to express Lexmark's strong
support for Senate Bill 1699 (the ``Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act''), and to urge your support for its
passage. S. 1699 creates a much-needed deterrent targeting
traffickers in counterfeit labels and goods--illegal acts
which plague not only our business, but many others. S. 1699
amends 18 U.S.C. 2320 to strengthen the application of this
statute to include those who traffic in counterfeit labels
and goods, thus greatly helping our fight against
counterfeiters.
Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of
control because it is seen as a lucrative, yet low risk,
crime that some even try to paint as a victimless crime.
Nothing could be farther from the truth--not only are the
illicit profits being funneled into other criminal
activities, but law abiding citizens around the world are
made victims when they unwittingly buy illegitimate products.
Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private
investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every
day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that
the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that
the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with
stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal, by
strengthening forfeiture and destruction remedies.
Counterfeiting costs the United States billions of dollars
each year in lost intellectual property, revenues, profits
and ultimately, jobs. These criminals must be stopped, and
this bill seeks to take away some of the tools they use to
manufacture counterfeit goods. If S. 1699 is enacted into
law, it will also help the United States seek reciprocal
legislation abroad.
I urge your personal support for S. 1699 both in Judiciary
Committee deliberations and in promotion of its passage in
the full Senate. Thank you for your consideration in
addressing this very serious problem.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick T. Brewer,
Director, Government Affairs.
____
Zippo Manufacturing Company,
Bradford, PA, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my absolute
support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act'' S. 1699 creates a necessary
disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in
counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699
and promote its passage in the full Senate.
First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help
our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the
application of this statute to those who traffic in
counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699
recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18
U.S.C. 2320.
Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction
remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of
control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime.
Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private
investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every
day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that
the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that
the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with
stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of
billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a
deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the
hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture
of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will
allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as
it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next
Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the
full Senate. Thank you for attending to a serious problem
that undermines U.S. intellectual property.
Sincerely,
Charles Jeffrey Duke,
Corporate Secretary and General Counsel.
____
WARNACO,
New York, NY, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my absolute
support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act.'' S. 1699 creates a necessary
disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in
counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699
and promote its passage in the full Senate.
First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help
our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the
application of this statute to those who traffic in
counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699
recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18
U.S.C. 2320.
Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction
remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of
control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime.
Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private
investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every
day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that
the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that
the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with
stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of
billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a
deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the
hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture
of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will
allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as
it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next
Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the
full Senate. Thank you for attending to a serious problem
that undermines U.S. intellectual property.
Sincerely,
Doreen Small,
Associate General Counsel.
____
Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.,
New York, NY, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am the President and CEO of Rolex
Watch U.S.A., Inc., which as you may be aware, has been
battling counterfeiters for many years. I am writing to
express my absolute support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' S. 1699 creates a
necessary disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers
in counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S.
1699 and promote its passage in the full Senate.
First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help
our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the
application of this statute to those who traffic in
counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699
recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18
U.S.C. 2320.
Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction
remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of
control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime.
Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private
investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every
day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that
the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that
the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with
stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of
billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a
deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the
hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture
of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will
allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as
it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
Sincerely,
Allen Brill,
President and CEO.
____
Vision Council of America,
Alexandria, VA, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy, I am writing to express my absolute
support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act''. S. 1699 creates a necessary
disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in
counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699
and promote its passage in the full Senate.
First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 win help
our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the
application of this statute to those who traffic in
counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699
recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18
U.S.C. 2320.
Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction
remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting.
Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of
control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime.
Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private
investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every
day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that
the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that
the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with
stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of
billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a
deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the
hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture
of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will
allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as
it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next
Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the
full Senate.
[[Page S12718]]
Thank you for attending to a serious problem that undermines
U.S. intellectual property.
Sincerely,
Donna Van Green,
Frame Division Liaison,
Vision Council of America.
____
The Timberland Company,
Stratham, NH, November 2, 2005.
Senator Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Russell
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter and Senator Leahy: On behalf of the
more than 2,100 people employed in the U.S. by The Timberland
Company. I am writing to express my support for S. 1699, the
``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act'' which
creates necessary disincentives in the criminal code for
traffickers in counterfeit labels and goods. This bill is an
essential step toward protecting our trademark, our brand,
and our company's identity. I urge you to endorse this bill
and promote its passage in the full Senate.
As you know, the elicit counterfeiting of legitimate
products is a serious problem, both internationally and in
the United States. This bill, which is similar to H.R. 32,
which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May,
will strengthen efforts to combat counterfeiting in the U.S.
in two very important ways. Specifically, S. 1699 would:
Amend Title 18 of the United States Code to close the
loophole in the criminal trademark infringement statute,
which currently does not criminally prohibit the trafficking
of labels, patches, and stickers, and other counterfeit
marks; and
Ensure that counterfeit goods and marks seized in violation
of this statute are properly disposed of and do not make
their way back on the street.
Counterfeiting costs the U.S. hundreds of billions of
dollars each year, and will continue to do so if our laws do
not act as a deterrent. Not only would S. 1699 take the very
equipment out of the hands of counterfeiters who would
perpetuate the manufacture of illicit goods, it would allow
the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as it
enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
I appreciate this opportunity to address this critically
important issue, and I hope you will continue the fight
against elicit counterfeiting of U.S. products by supporting
S. 1699 and promoting its passage in the full Senate.
Sincerely,
Danette Wineberg,
Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been very heartening to see such
overwhelming support for this important bill. Counterfeiting is a
threat to America. It wreaks real harm on our economy, our workers, and
our consumers. This bill is a tough bill that will give law enforcement
improved tools to fight this form of theft. The bill is short and
straight-forward, but its impact should be profound and far-reaching.
Mr. SPECTER. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators
Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold,
Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow and Voinovich for their
co-sponsorship.
I would also like to thank Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Joe Knollenberg
for their leadership in the House with regard to H.R. 32,
counterfeiting legislation directly related to S. 1699. In January of
this year, Representative Knollenberg introduced H.R. 32, the initial
draft of the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, in
the House. When the bill was in Committee, he fostered negotiations
between the Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and
the International Trademark Association to craft language nearly
paralleling S. 1699. I commend to my colleagues the Housing Judiciary
Committee Report on H.R. 32, as amended.
Mr. LEAHY. Some of our most important legislation is produced not
only when we reach across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship, but,
when we work across chambers and reach true consensus. I would also
like to thank Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn,
DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow
and Voinovich for their cosponsorship. Counterfeiting is a serious
problem that does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution. This
legislation is an important step towards fighting counterfeiting. I
hope we can build on the success of this law.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and
passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no
intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the
bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1699), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________