.
Applicability of the Copyright Law’s First Sale
Doctrine to Imported Goods Manufactured
Abroad: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A.
Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
September 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41422
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
Summary
Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act grants a copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute
copies of a copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending. In addition, § 602(a) of the Copyright Act generally prohibits the importation
into the United States, without the authority of the copyright holder, of copies of a work that have
been acquired outside the United States; such importation is considered an infringement of the
exclusive right to distribute copies of the work under § 106. However, the Copyright Act’s “first-
sale” doctrine, codified at § 109(a), provides a limitation to the copyright holder’s distribution
rights—it entitles the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work that has been “lawfully
made under” title 17 of the U.S. Code (where the Copyright Act is codified) to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession of that copy, without the prior permission of the copyright holder. In
other words, once a copyright holder agrees to sell particular copies of his work to others
(constituting the “first sale” of such copies), the copyright holder may not thereafter further
control subsequent transfers of ownership of those copies.
On November 8, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Costco Wholesale
Corp. v. Omega S.A., in which it will have an opportunity to examine the scope of the first sale
doctrine with respect to so-called “gray-market” goods—products that have been manufactured
and purchased abroad and thereafter imported into the United States for resale at often discounted
prices to U.S. customers. The case involves the sale by Costco in its California warehouse stores
of authentic Omega watches made in Switzerland. Costco had purchased these watches (which
bear a copyrighted design on their underside) from third parties that had purchased the watches
from authorized Omega distributors located abroad. While Omega had permitted the initial
foreign sale of its watches, it did not authorize their importation into the United States or Costco’s
domestic sale of the watches. Omega sued Costco for infringing its distribution and importation
rights under §§ 106(3) and 602(a) of the Copyright Act; Costco defended itself by arguing that the
first sale doctrine, § 109(a), precludes Omega’s infringement claims. In September 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
Costco, holding that the first sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods that had been
manufactured and first sold abroad. The appellate court reached this determination by asserting
that copies of copyrighted works made and sold outside the United States are not considered
“lawfully made” within the meaning of § 109(a); thus, these copies are not subject to the first sale
doctrine, and Costco is precluded from raising such defense to Omega’s infringement claims.
Some observers have been critical of the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the first sale doctrine,
concerned about its potential implications. Specifically, some have asserted that the appellate
court’s decision creates incentives for outsourcing, as manufacturers would desire to move
production abroad of goods containing copyrighted aspects (thus avoiding the first sale doctrine’s
effect and providing the manufacturer with greater control over distribution of the goods). In
addition, they believe the appellate court’s decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, negatively
impacts domestic retailers and importers of goods made abroad because these entities would have
to undertake the difficult task of tracing the origins of any copyrighted component of imported
goods (or risk being sued for copyright infringement). Finally, they worry that U.S. consumers
would be harmed by being denied the opportunity to purchase gray-market goods at discounted
prices. However, others argue that notwithstanding these possible implications of the Ninth
Circuit’s ruling, Congress had granted copyright holders the right to control importation of copies
in such a way as to segment domestic and foreign markets, and it is up to Congress to amend the
Copyright Act to change that policy choice.
Congressional Research Service
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Exclusive Rights of Copyright Holder ................................................................................... 1
Limitations on Rights of Copyright Holder............................................................................ 1
Gray-Market Goods .............................................................................................................. 2
Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc. .......................................... 2
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A........................................................................................ 3
Ninth Circuit’s Opinion......................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 7
Congressional Research Service
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
Introduction
Exclusive Rights of Copyright Holder
Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act grants a copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute
copies of a copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending. In addition to the general distribution right, Section 602(a) of the Copyright Act
provides a copyright holder with the right to prohibit the importation into the United States of
copies of a work that have been acquired outside the United States; such importation, if done
without the authority of the copyright holder, is considered an infringement of the exclusive right
to distribute copies of the work under § 106.1
Limitations on Rights of Copyright Holder
However, the Copyright Act’s “first-sale” doctrine, codified at § 109(a), provides a limitation to
the copyright holder’s distribution right: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the
owner of a particular copy … lawfully made under this title … is entitled, without the authority of
the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.” For example,
someone who purchases a new book in a bookstore (thus constituting the “first sale” of that
particular copy) becomes the owner of that physical item. He or she may thereafter distribute the
book (for example, give it away to a friend or sell it to a used book store) without obtaining prior
consent of the book’s copyright owner.2 Owners of copies of a copyrighted work that have been
“lawfully made under” title 17 of the U.S. Code (where the Copyright Act is codified) are thus
immunized from copyright infringement liability when they transfer ownership of those copies to
other individuals.3 As the U.S. Supreme Court has previously explained, “The whole point of the
first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of
commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution.”4
Compelling public policy reasons support the Copyright Act’s first sale doctrine. As the U.S.
Supreme Court has noted, “The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of
authors, but ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’”5 In accordance with this
constitutional mandate, the Copyright Act balances the rights of copyright holders in their
1 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) (“Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner … , or who imports
copies … into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright…”). The Copyright Act
provides several additional rights to the copyright holder, a description of which is beyond the scope of this report. For
more information about the Copyright Act, see CRS Report RS22801, General Overview of U.S. Copyright Law, by
Brian T. Yeh.
2 As another example, public libraries and video rental businesses such as Netflix and Blockbuster rely on the first sale
doctrine to avoid being liable for infringement of the copyright holders’ distribution rights.
3 The first sale doctrine is triggered by the first authorized disposition by which title passes. Melville B. Nimmer &
David Nimmer, 2 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 8.12[B][1][a] (Matthew Bender 2010). If the copyright owner leases a copy
of the work, the doctrine does not apply. Id. The first sale doctrine also does not apply to owners of infringing or
pirated copies of copyrighted works, as these copies would not be considered “lawfully made under” title 17. Quality
King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 147 n.17 (1998).
4 Id. at 152.
5 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.)
Congressional Research Service
1
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
intellectual property with the public’s interest in having robust ownership rights in the tangible
material in which copyrighted works are fixed. By terminating the distribution right of copyright
holders after the initial sale of a particular copy, owners of those copies benefit from having
unrestrained alienability of personal property.
Gray-Market Goods
At issue in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A., a case currently pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court,6 is the scope of the first sale doctrine with respect to so-called “gray-market”
goods—products that have been manufactured and purchased abroad and thereafter imported into
the United States for resale to U.S. customers, usually at discounted prices. Also known as
“parallel imports,” gray-market goods are legitimate, genuine products possessing a brand name
protected by a trademark and/or containing designs or other subject matter protected by
copyright.7 These goods are usually manufactured abroad and then purchased and imported into
the United States by third parties, “thereby bypassing the authorized U.S. distribution channels.”8
U.S. retailers can sell gray-market products at cheaper prices compared to the higher domestic
prices established by the manufacturer. The question facing the Supreme Court in Costco is
whether a manufacturer’s right to prohibit unauthorized importation of copyrighted works is
exhausted by the initial foreign sale of copies of copyrighted works that were made outside the
United States.
Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research
International, Inc.
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court was confronted with a question reminiscent of that posed in
Costco, although there is a factual difference between the cases that may be legally significant to
the Court’s disposition of Costco. In Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research
International, Inc., a California company (L’anza) manufactured and sold shampoo and other hair
care products; the products were manufactured in the United States, but were sold by L’anza both
domestically and internationally. L’anza had copyrighted the labels that it affixed to its products.
The prices that L’anza charged its domestic distributors were significantly higher than the prices
charged to foreign distributors. L’anza’s United Kingdom distributor had sold several tons of
L’anza’s products (affixed with the copyrighted labels) to a distributor in Malta; Quality King
Distributors bought the products from the Malta distributor and imported the products for resale
in the United States through retailers who were not within L’anza’s authorized chain of
distribution.9 L’anza sued Quality King for infringement of its distribution and importation rights
under the Copyright Act. The district court rejected Quality King’s defense based on the first sale
doctrine; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, noting that § 602’s ban on
importation would be “meaningless” if § 109 “were found to supersede the prohibition on
importation in this case.”10
6 Costco Wholesale Corp., v. Omega, S.A., No. 08-1423 (U.S., cert. granted April 19, 2010).
7 Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, 984 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008).
8 Id. (quoting Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477, 481 n.6 (9th Cir. 1994)).
9 Quality King Distributors, 523 U.S. at 139.
10 L'Anza Research Int’l, Inc. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc., 98 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 1996).
Congressional Research Service
2
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
The Supreme Court in Quality King reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the first sale doctrine
endorsed in § 109 applies to copies of copyrighted works that are imported into the United
States.11 In reaching this conclusion, the Court first observed that the copyright holder’s
distribution right granted by § 106(3) is expressly limited by other provisions of the Copyright
Act, including the first sale doctrine codified at § 109(a). Section 602(a) provides that
unauthorized importation is an infringement of the copyright holder’s exclusive right to
distribution under § 106. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the rights granted by § 602 must also
be limited by the first sale doctrine. According to the Court, because § 106(3) “does not
encompass resales by lawful owners, the literal text of § 602(a) is simply inapplicable to both
domestic and foreign owners of L’anza’s products who decide to import them and resell them in
the United States.”12 The Court held that the owner of goods lawfully made under the Copyright
Act “is entitled to the protection of the first sale doctrine in an action in a United States court
even if the first sale occurred abroad.”13
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg identified the issue left unresolved by the Quality King
opinion—one that appears likely to be answered by the Costco decision:
This case involves a “round trip” journey, travel of the copies in question from the United
States to places abroad, then back again. I join the Court’s opinion recognizing that we do
not today resolve cases in which the allegedly infringing imports were manufactured abroad.
In making this clarification, Justice Ginsburg cited without comment two treatises on copyright
law:
See W. Patry, Copyright Law and Practice 166-170 (1997 Supp.) (commenting that
provisions of Title 17 do not apply extraterritorially unless expressly so stated, hence the
words “lawfully made under this title” in the “first sale” provision, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), must
mean “lawfully made in the United States”); see generally P. Goldstein, Copyright § 16.0,
pp. 16:1-16:2 (2d ed. 1998) (“Copyright protection is territorial. The rights granted by the
United States Copyright Act extend no farther than the nation’s borders.”).
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega S.A.
The facts of Costco v. Omega are relatively straight forward. The Swiss corporation Omega
manufactures wrist watches in Switzerland and sells them through authorized distributors and
retailers around the world. Omega engraves on the underside of its watches a small logo—an
original artwork that it refers to as the “Omega Globe Design,” that Omega had registered as a
copyrighted work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Costco obtained authentic Omega watches
from the “gray market”—from third parties that had purchased the watches from authorized
Omega distributors overseas. Costco then sold the watches to U.S. customers within its California
warehouse stores. While Omega had authorized the initial foreign sale of its watches, it did not
authorize their importation into the United States or Costco’s domestic sale of the watches.14
11 Quality King Distributors, 523 U.S. at 145.
12 Id.
13 Id. n.14.
14 Omega S.A., 541 F.3d at 983-84.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
Omega sued Costco for infringing its distribution and importation rights under §§ 106(3) and
602(a) of the Copyright Act; Costco defended itself by arguing that the first sale doctrine, §
109(a), precludes Omega’s infringement claims. Without explanation, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted summary judgment to Costco on the basis of the first
sale doctrine.15
Ninth Circuit’s Opinion
In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court,
holding that the first sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods that were manufactured and
first sold abroad.16 The appellate court reached this determination by asserting that copies of
copyrighted works made and first sold outside the United States are not considered “lawfully
made” within the meaning of § 109(a); thus, these copies are not subject to the first sale doctrine,
and Costco is precluded from raising such defense to Omega’s infringement claims.17
In support of its position, Costco had argued that the Supreme Court’s Quality King decision had
“effectively overruled” three Ninth Circuit opinions in the 1990s18 that were issued before Quality
King. Those earlier appellate court opinions had developed a “general rule that § 109(a) can
provide a defense against §§ 106(3) and 602(a) claims only insofar as the claims involve
domestically made copies of U.S.-copyrighted works.”19 The Ninth Circuit in Costco determined,
however, that Quality King did not directly overrule or otherwise invalidate this general rule that
§ 109(a) is limited to copies legally made in the United States.20 Instead, the Ninth Circuit
distinguished Quality King by limiting that decision to its specific facts—that of a good made in
the United States that had been sold abroad and then re-imported without the consent of the
copyright holder.
The appellate court explained that the basis for its “general rule” was its concern that applying §
109(a) to copies made abroad “would violate the presumption against the extraterritorial
application of U.S. law.”21 The court further opined that “[t]o characterize the making of copies
overseas as ‘lawful[ ] … under [Title 17]’ would be to ascribe legality under the Copyright Act to
conduct that occurs entirely outside the United States, notwithstanding the absence of a clear
expression of congressional intent in favor of extraterritoriality.”22 Finally, the court stated,
In short, copies covered by the phrase “lawfully made under [Title 17]” in § 109(a) are not
simply those which are lawfully made by the owner of a U.S. copyright. Something more is
required. To us, that “something” is the making of the copies within the United States, where
the Copyright Act applies.23
15 Id. at 983.
16 Id. at 985.
17 Id. at 986.
18 BMG Music v. Perez, 952 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1991), Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477 (9th
Cir. 1994), and Denbicare U.S.A. Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1996).
19 Omega S.A., 541 F.3d at 985.
20 Id. at 987.
21 Id. (citations omitted).
22 Id. at 988 (citations omitted).
23 Id. (emphasis in original).
Congressional Research Service
4
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
The Ninth Circuit also cited Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence in Quality King that appeared to
approve its interpretation of § 109(a), and noted that the Quality King “majority opinion did not
dispute this interpretation.”24
The appellate court acknowledged that if its interpretation of § 109(a) were taken to its logical
extreme, a copyright holder “could seemingly exercise distribution rights after even the tenth sale
in the United States of a watch lawfully made in Switzerland.”25 However, the court explained
that its earlier precedents would address this situation—those opinions had held that parties can
raise the first sale defense in cases involving foreign-made copies if the copyright holder had
authorized a lawful domestic sale.26 Because Omega had not authorized any of the domestic sales
in this case, the appellate court found it unnecessary to decide whether this exception to its
“general rule” had survived Quality King.27
On April 19, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Costco28 to consider the following
issue:
Under the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § l09(a), the owner of any particular
copy “lawfully made under this title” may resell that good without the authority of the
copyright holder. In Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’Anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S.
135, 138 (1998), this Court posed the question presented as “whether the ‘first sale’ doctrine
endorsed in § 109(a) is applicable to imported copies.” In the decision below, the Ninth
Circuit held that Quality King (which answered that question affirmatively) is limited to its
facts, which involved goods manufactured in the United States, sold abroad, and then re-
imported. The question presented here is: Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the
first-sale doctrine does not apply to imported goods manufactured abroad.29
In its brief submitted to the Court, the petitioner Costco argued that the Ninth Circuit’s distinction
between goods made in the United States and those made abroad “has no basis in the Copyright
Act’s first sale-doctrine”; furthermore, Costco warned that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, if upheld by
the Court “would have severe consequences, which Congress could not have intended, for the
U.S. economy.”30 Costco elaborated its concerns about the implications of the Ninth Circuit’s
interpretation of § 109(a) that makes the first sale doctrine categorically inapplicable to goods
manufactured abroad:
Manufacturers that sell globally will prefer to manufacture their goods abroad because of the
increased control they will gain over subsequent sales and use of their products. Conversely,
retailers and consumers will be hesitant to buy or sell such products for fear of unintended
liability for infringement. Moreover, by exempting goods manufactured abroad from the
first-sale doctrine, the Ninth Circuit’s decision gives rise to a number of other absurd
24 Id. at 989. Although the opinion of the Court in Quality King did not dispute Justice Ginsburg’s interpretation, it also
did not directly acknowledge it either, nor did any member of the Court join her concurring opinion.
25 Id.
26 Id., citing Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 1994), and Denbicare U.S.A. Inc. v.
Toys “R” Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1996).
27 Id. at 990.
28 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., 130 S. Ct. 2089, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3424 (2010).
29 U.S. Supreme Court, Question Presented in No. 08-1423, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., at
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/08-01423qp.pdf.
30 Brief for Petitioners at 12, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A, No. 08-1423.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
outcomes unintended by Congress, including copyright infringement liability for libraries
that lend foreign books or movies.31
The respondent Omega urges the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit opinion and find that “a third
party infringes a copyright owner’s exclusive rights by importing or distributing in the United
States a copy that the copyright owner made and sold overseas exclusively for distribution outside
the United States.”32 Omega argues that the act of making copies of a copyrighted work abroad,
for foreign sale and distribution, is not governed by the Copyright Act—thus, such actions do not
implicate any exclusive rights granted under § 106, and these copies cannot be lawfully or
unlawfully made “under this title.”33 Omega notes that because § 602(a)(1) applies to genuine
copies of copyrighted works made abroad, Congress deliberately allowed for the segmentation of
domestic and foreign markets—that is, “Congress intended to provide U.S. copyright owners the
right separately to authorize foreign and domestic distribution of legitimate copies.”34
In then-Solicitor General Kagan’s brief for the United States as amicus curiae that was filed
regarding the petition for a writ of certiorari in the Costco case, the United States government
argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is consistent with Quality King and the “consensus view
of the leading commentators on copyright law.”35 While acknowledging Costco’s “legitimate
concerns”36 about the Ninth Circuit’s “reasoning [that] could result in adverse policy
consequences, particularly if carried to its logical extreme,”37 the United States stated that it was
unaware of any evidence that the most serious potential consequences have actually materialized.
These “potential adverse policy effects that [Costco] identifies are a direct and inherent
consequence of Congress’s decision in 1976 to expand Section 602’s ban on unauthorized
importation beyond piratical copies,” the government observed.38 This policy choice of Congress
allows the differential treatment of goods made domestically and abroad. However, the
government suggested that “Congress of course remains free to amend the Copyright Act in order
to adjust the balance between protection of copyright holders’ prerogatives and advancement of
other policy objectives.”39
Conclusion
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Costco v. Omega on November 8, 2010. Because
Elena Kagan in her previous role as Solicitor General had written a brief recommending that the
Court not grant the petition for writ of certiorari in the case, the new Justice Kagan has recused
herself in the upcoming Costco case.40 Her recusal means that only eight justices will consider the
31 Id.
32 Brief for Respondents at 2, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A, No. 08-1423.
33 Id. at 8.
34 Id. at 12 (emphasis in original).
35 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 5-6, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A, No. 08-1423.
36 Id. at 18.
37 Id. at 5.
38 Id. at 18.
39 Id. at 19.
40 Tony Mauro, Kagan Recuses in Ten More Cases, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, Sept. 13, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
The First Sale Doctrine and Imported Goods Manufactured Abroad: Costco v. Omega
case; thus, it raises the possibility of a 4-4 tie vote, in which event the Ninth Circuit’s decision
would stand.
The Court’s opinion in Costco may have considerable impact on the domestic retail industry. A
decision that upholds the appellate court’s opinion could impact the secondary markets of
copyrighted goods, such as eBay, Amazon.com, and even traditional brick-and-mortar
secondhand stores. If the Court reverses the Ninth Circuit, its decision could affect the ability of
companies to sell copyrighted works at different price points in the U.S. and foreign markets (a
practice known as “geographical price discrimination.”). It remains to be seen whether the factual
differences between Quality King and Costco are legally significant: as described earlier, the
former case involved products that had been manufactured in the United States before being first
sold abroad and then re-imported into the United States without the consent of the copyright
holder, whereas the latter case involves a product that was made abroad, first sold abroad, and
thereafter imported and sold within the United States without the permission of the copyright
holder. As Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence in Quality King explained, the Quality King Court did
not address whether the first sale doctrine applies to imported goods that had been manufactured
abroad. This question promises to be resolved by the Court’s Costco opinion. The answer may
well turn on whether a majority of the members of the Court agree or disagree with the statements
made in the copyright treatises cited by Justice Ginsburg’s Quality King concurrence: the first
sale provision does not have extraterritorial application; that is, the words “lawfully made under
this title” appearing in § 109(a) must be construed to mean “lawfully made in the United States.”
Author Contact Information
Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney
byeh@crs.loc.gov, 7-5182
Congressional Research Service
7