Vans has asked a New York federal court to find that MSCHF is disregarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that prohibit it from continuing to offer up and/or fulfill existing orders for the allegedly infringing Wavy Baby sneakers. In a letter to Judge William Kuntz of the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York dated May 12, counsel for Vans alleges that despite the court’s April 29 Decision & Order, granting Vans’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, MSCHF has “continued to fulfill orders for, and ship, its infringing Wavy Baby shoes in violation of the injunction.” 

“Despite the unambiguous language of the injunction,” Vans alleges that it has learned from “multiple sources that MSCHF has continued to ship the infringing shoes to customers even after the injunction issued and that it has also refused to reverse and/or cancel incomplete orders for the infringing shoes.” Specifically, Vans asserts that it maintains evidence that two MSCHF customers who ordered the Wavy Baby sneakers in April “received notifications from MSCHF’s shipping carrier indicating they had received [their] order information.” Beyond that, Vans claims that it has evidence that one of its own employees who ordered the allegedly infringing shoes on April 18 “received a shipment notification that her order had been picked up by the carrier from a warehouse facility in China operated by MSCHF’s manufacturer/distributor” on May 11, almost two weeks after the injunction was issued. 

“Each of the [these] violations, alone,” serves to violate the court’s order, which “clearly and unambiguously” prohibits MSCHF from “fulfill[ing] any orders for the infringing shoes” and requires it to “‘reverse and/or cancel’ any unfulfilled orders,” counsel for Vans contends. As such, they “merit a finding that MSCHF is in contempt of this court’s order,” per Vans, and also “demonstrate that MSCHF has intentionally and repeatedly flouted the authority of the court.” Beyond that, Vans asserts that it is “highly likely that more similar incidents will come to light through the briefing and hearing of Vans’ contempt motion.” 

With the foregoing in mind, Vans argues that a finding of contempt and appropriate sanctions are “necessary to ensure MSCHF’s compliance with its obligations, and to protect Vans’ intellectual property rights from further irreparable harm.” Such a finding is proper here, counsel for the Southern California-based footwear brand argues, as “(1) the [court’s] order that was violated by [MSCHF] is ‘clear and unambiguous;’ (2) the proof of noncompliance is ‘clear and convincing;’ and (3) [MSCHF] has not ‘diligently attempted to comply [with the order] in a reasonable manner.’”

In addition to an order of contempt, Vans contends that the imposition of sanctions is “necessary to immediately ensure that MSCHF conforms its conduct to the court’s unambiguous instructions,” including “a coercive fine to ensure MSCHF’s future compliance with the court’s order.” On this point, Vans cites the award of “a fine of $25,000 plus a fine of $10,000 for each day the contemnor failed to comply with the court’s order” from U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York in Cherie Amie, Inc. v. Windstar Apparel, Corp. It further contends that “an award of attorneys’ fees for the cost to Vans of bringing MSCHF’s contempt to the Court’s attention should also be granted, as MSCHF had ample notice of the Injunction and nonetheless willfully disregarded its obligations.” 

Judge Kuntz responded to Vans’ letter on May 12 with an order that MSCHF file a response to Vans’ contempt and sanctions request “on or before May 20.”

Vans made headlines last month when it filed suit against Brooklyn-based “art collective” MSCHF, alleging that “in spite of, or perhaps due to, [its] knowledge of Vans’ rights and the substantial value of the Vans trademarks and trade dress, MSCHF embarked on a campaign to piggy-back on Vans’ rights and the goodwill it has developed in its iconic shoes” by offering up a shoe of its own that “blatantly and unmistakably incorporates Vans’ iconic trademarks and trade dress.” In its complaint, Vans claims that by way of the Wavy Baby sneaker, MSCHF is willfully infringing its trademark and trade dress rights in the 40-year-old OLD SKOOL shoe, including the Side Stripe trademark, and also engaging in unfair competition, trademark dilution, and unfair trade practices under New York State law.

MSCHF (unsuccessfully) argued in response to Vans’ quest for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that Vans is not likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement (and dilution) claims because the Wavy Baby sneakers are “an artwork protected by the First Amendment” and “no reasonable consumer would be confused into thinking that Wavy Baby was produced or endorsed by Vans.” MSCHF further argued that an injunction prohibiting it from offering up the Wavy Baby shoes “would unconstitutionally restrain [its] free speech because its parody of Vans is protected First Amendment expression.” 

Counsel for MSCHF has since filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in response to the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The case is Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc., 1:22-cv-02156 (EDNY).

OpenSea is angling to get the lawsuit filed against it by a former Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT owner, who has accused the NFT marketplace of failing to address “security vulnerabilities in its platform” that led to a widely-reported breach that cost users of the marketplace millions of dollars in stolen NFTs. In to the motion to compel arbitration that it filed this month, OpenSea asserts that Plaintiff Timothy McKimmy “repeatedly and unambiguously agreed to OpenSea’s Terms of Service,” which includes a binding arbitration clause, which makes arbitration “the proper forum for this dispute.”

OpenSea argues in the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 2 that McKimmy agreed to its Terms of Service “through at least three different acceptance flows: when purchasing his first NFT using OpenSea’s services, when connecting his crypto wallets to OpenSea, and when using OpenSea’s mobile application.” Specifically, OpenSea, which maintains the title of the biggest marketplace for NFTs with its $13 billion valuation and roster of more than 80 million NFTs, alleges that “prior to buying or selling NFTs using [its] services, users must first connect their third-party crypto wallets, such as MetaMask or Coinbase Wallet, to OpenSea.” In order to do so, OpenSea says that “users must agree to [its] Terms of Service … [which] notify users upfront, in bold capital letters, that the Terms ‘REQUIRE ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN US TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION RATHER THAN BY A JUDGE OR JURY IN COURT.”

As a “consistent and frequent OpenSea user since at least December 2021,” OpenSea asserts that McKimmy agreed to its “terms and the arbitration agreements therein when he repeatedly purchased NFTs, connected his crypto wallets to OpenSea, and signed in to OpenSea’s mobile app.” Against that background, OpenSea argues that McKimmy’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, trust, contract and implied contract claims fall within the scope of its arbitration agreements, which it says are not “so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be unenforc[ea]ble.” 

In furtherance of this claim, OpenSea states that, among other things, its arbitration agreements “provide that both OpenSea and its users agree to waive their ‘RIGHTS TO SUE IN COURT’ and are ‘electing that all claims and disputes be resolved by arbitration.’” Beyond that, OpenSea claims that it “also agrees to pay all arbitration fees upfront if a user ‘cannot afford to pay’ and to reimburse JAMS fees for claims less than $10,000, unless the arbitrator determines the claims are frivolous.” OpenSea users “may also choose how the arbitration should be conducted (e.g., by phone, written submissions, etc.),” the platform states, asserting that McKimmy “cannot show that these provisions do not compare favorably to court proceedings, where users might be required to pay their own fees and may be compelled to testify.”

In addition to arguing that McKimmy’s claims fall within the scope of its terms and thus, are subject to arbitration, OpenSea also contends that its arbitration agreements “provide ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’” that it and McKimmy “intended an arbitrator, not a court, to decide arbitrability,” with the arbitration agreements “expressly and broadly delegate gateway questions to an arbitrator,” and not a court. 

With the foregoing in mind, OpenSea – which claims that it met and conferred with counsel for McKimmy on April 28, but that they were unable to resolve the issues underlying its motion to compel arbitration – requests that the court grant its motion to compel arbitration and dismiss McKimmy’s action in its entirety.

Assuming that the court does, in fact, compel arbitration, lawyer and intellectual property researcher Mike Dunford previously stated that McKimmy’s lawsuit against OpenSea “may turn on how much you can get away with disclaiming under New York contract law,” which is the state that OpenSea lists in the choice of law provision in its terms of service. (Among other things, OpenSea’s terms state, “You agree that any dispute, controversy, or claim relating in any way to your access or use of the Service, to any products sold or distributed through the Service, or to any aspect of your relationship with OpenSea, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, including threshold questions of the arbitrability of such dispute, controversy, or claim.”)

OpenSea’s filing comes almost three months after McKimmy filed his lawsuit against OpenSea, claiming that his “unquestionably valuable” Bored Ape NFT (#3475) was allegedly stolen from thanks to a phishing attacked targeting OpenSea users, and then sold by an unknown third party. 

The case is Timothy McKimmy v. OpenSea, 4:22-cv-00545 (S.D. Tex.).

Tiffany & Co. is looking to get the amended complaint filed against it by Cartier tossed out of court, arguing that its rival jeweler’s case is a “doomed” attack, “calibrated for maximum publicity.” In a newly-filed motion to dismiss, Tiffany & Co. asserts that Cartier has failed to establish the trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and tortious interference claims that it sets out in the case that it first filed in New York state court in March, in which it accuses Tiffany of luring former Cartier employee – and named defendant – Megan Marino away from her role as its Assistant Manager for Jewelry Merchandising to join Tiffany, and getting her to share “very sensitive and valuable” internal Cartier documents in the process. 

In response to the amended complaint that Cartier lodged with the court in April, in which it claims that Tiffany engaged in a concerted effort “to solicit and receive … trade secrets and other confidential information that would facilitate the pursuit of [its] stated corporate goal of competing with Cartier’s High Jewelry business” from two former Cartier employees, Tiffany argues that Cartier has failed to make its case. Primarily, Tiffany asserts that Cartier does not allege that the information that Marino allegedly stole from Cartier – including an inventory spreadsheet and “general revenue data” – amounts to trade secret information. 

In accordance with New York law, Tiffany contends that trade secrets are limited to “the most sensitive corporate information designed for ‘continuous use in the operation of the business,’” which is distinct from information about “‘single or ephemeral events in the conduct of the business,’ such as general financial and operational data.” While Cartier argues that access to such information “would allow a competitor to ‘make adjustments’ to their product allocations to match [its own],” Tiffany asserts that the information is “ephemeral, operational data, long-since outdated or provisional only, that can never qualify for protection under New York law.”

Second, Tiffany asserts that even if the information at issue was to be construed as trade secrets, Cartier’s claim is still lacking, as that information was “never sufficiently kept secret.” The ability of “Marino, a low-level assistant manager who did not work with High Jewelry, [to] so easily to access supposedly highly-sensitive High Jewelry documents prove[s] only that the documents are not and were never treated as sensitive at all,” Tiffany contends. While Cartier’s shared drive – where the information at issue was stored – was password-protected and its employees were required to sign confidentiality agreements, Tiffany contends that “Cartier admits that the documents were not separately encrypted, password-protected, marked or segregated, or otherwise given protections beyond those provided to standard Cartier documents.” 

Finally, Tiffany pushes back against Cartier’s trade secret claim on the basis that it “did nothing wrongful” in connection with Marino’s alleged misappropriation. “Tiffany cannot have aided and abetted Marino in breaching any fiduciary duty where there are no allegations that Tiffany knew what Marino was doing or offered assistance,” the LVMH-owned brand argues. Instead, Tiffany asserts that “Cartier admits that Marino took the documents at issue without any prompting from Tiffany and then voluntarily created and used spreadsheets at Tiffany without Tiffany’s knowledge.” 

In addition to allegedly falling short in establishing its trade secret claim, Tiffany argues that Cartier’s claim that Tiffany tortiously interfered fails because “there are no alleged facts showing Tiffany knew of Marino’s agreements or was the but-for cause of any breach.” Beyond that, Cartier’s allegation that Tiffany aided and abetted Marino’s breach of her fiduciary duty to Cartier similarly fails because Cartier “did not and cannot plead at least two elements of this claim,” per Tiffany. Specifically, it argues that Cartier makes “no specific factual allegations supporting its naked assertion that Tiffany knew of Marino’s breach,” and “no particularized allegation that Tiffany ever gave ‘substantial assistance’ to Marino in the ‘achievement of the primary violation.’” And still yet, Cartier’s unfair competition claim “fails for the same reasons as its other claims,” per Tiffany. 

With the foregoing in mind, Tiffany argues that the court should dismiss all of Cartier’s claims against it with prejudice. 

Tiffany’s motion comes less than a month after Cartier filed an amended complaint, adding an additional defendant on the heels of allegedly “discover[ing] additional substantial evidence of trade secrets misappropriated from Cartier.” Since filing suit, Cartier claims that it “has confronted Tiffany about another employee, Jaron Green, who recently misappropriated dozens of confidential Cartier documents immediately prior to resigning” from his role as Cartier’s Assistant Boutique Manager in Honolulu, Hawaii to take on a “more senior role” at Tiffany. 

“Rather than disclose the extent of Green’s misconduct and state whether any of Cartier’s information was disseminated or used,” Cartier claims that Tiffany “continues to employ Green and to defend him,” thereby, requiring it to “bring this action to address Green’s breach of his Confidential Information and Non-Solicitation Agreement and misappropriation of Cartier’s trade secrets and to hold Tiffany responsible for its conduct” in connection with that alleged “breach,” as well as the previously alleged wrongdoing of Tiffany and Marino. 

The case is Cartier v. Tiffany & Co., et al., 650925/2022 (N.Y. Sup.).

Nike has asked a New York federal court to allow it to amend the complaint that it filed against StockX early this year over the resale marketplace’s allegedly infringing “Vault” NFTs, asserting that since it lodged that complaint, “additional facts transpired or were discovered that are highly relevant to [its] claims against StockX.” In addition to entering into the non-fungible token (“NFT”) market since the filing of its suit by way of a venture with its RTFKT brand, the Beaverton, Oregon-based sportswear behemoth claims that it has purchased a number of pairs of counterfeit “Nike” sneakers from the StockX platform, and all the while, StockX has altered its terms for the “Vault” NFTs, giving rise to the need for Nike to make relevant amendments to its original filing. 

In the 25-page memo of law in support that it filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, counsel for Nike seeks leave to amend the complaint that it filed against StockX in February, in which it accused the fashion and footwear resale platform of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Since it lodged that complaint, Nike claims that there are “multiple facts that occurred or were discovered” that are directly related to its claims against StockX. 

Primarily, Nike argues that “StockX has made a series of modifications to its representations surrounding [the] Vault NFTs” at the center of the case. For example, Nike states that after it “shined a spotlight on several problematic and deceptive terms governing the infringing Nike-branded NFTs, StockX deleted and/or replaced those terms.” StockX also allegedly “modified Vault NFT marketing that, e.g., promised owners of the infringing Nike-branded NFTs exclusive StockX benefits.” While these changes “do nothing to excuse StockX’s ongoing infringement of Nike’s marks or to resolve its past infringement and, indeed, by the time those modifications were made, StockX had already offered for sale, sold, and/or released into the stream of commerce all of the infringing Nike-branded NFTs,” Nike argues that StockX’s “revisionary conduct is, nonetheless, relevant to [its] claims,” and thus, should be included in an amended complaint. 

Beyond that, Nike says that its own position has changed since it filed suit, as it has since entered the NFT market, a fact that is critical to the likelihood of confusion analysis. “Two key factors in the likelihood of confusion analysis are ‘proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another’ and evidence that the senior user may ‘bridge the gap’ by developing a product for sale in the market of the alleged infringer’s product,” Nike asserts. “Sure enough, after Nike’s drop of these NFTs, additional actual confusion between the parties’ occurred because of StockX’s infringing Nike-branded NFTs.”

Finally, Nike proposes supplementing its pleadings with additional allegations – and two addition causes of action – centering on its alleged purchase of “four confirmed pairs of counterfeit ‘Nike’ shoes” from the StockX platform. Despite “StockX’s numerous guarantees of authenticity,” and its argument that each of the Vault NFTs functions as “a ‘claim ticket’ to a pair of Nike shoes that StockX authenticated using its ‘proprietary, multi-step authentication process,’” Nike claims that it purchased the counterfeit sneakers “within a two-month period on StockX’s platform.” 

“At least one pair of those counterfeit shoes are the same style as one of the infringing Nike-branded Vault NFTs,” Nike asserts. 

Nike StockX

In addition to seeking to include factual allegations about how StockX is “actively and directly selling counterfeit goods on its platform,” Nike says that it is looking to add counterfeiting and false advertising causes of action to its original five causes of action. Nike claims that it has a claim for false advertising in light of StockX’s practice of “guaranteeing [its] sales as ‘100% Verified Authentic’ based on its ‘proprietary’ authentication process when they are not,” and give that “those statements are material to [consumers’] purchasing decisions.”  

As support for proposed inclusion of counterfeiting and false advertising claims, Nike asserts that “a court in this District recently denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss nearly identical causes of action for counterfeiting and false advertising.” The case that Nike is referencing is Chanel v. The RealReal (“TRR”), in which the court held that “Chanel has adequately averred that its own investigation revealed that TRR marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel products, and Chanel has also alleged that TRR’s own customers have complained about the receipt of counterfeit merchandise.” 

In the case at hand, just as Chanel asserts in its case against TRR, Nike argues that it sets out “plausible claims for counterfeiting and false advertising because the proposed [amended complaint] sufficiently alleges that StockX has been and is currently dealing in counterfeit Nike goods, which renders false and/or misleading StockX’s ‘100% Verified Authentic’ claims and its claims about the ‘proprietary multi-step verification process’ it employs to authenticate goods.” 

Nike also contends that it “sufficiently alleges that StockX is knowingly deceiving consumers with these false and/or misleading statements about the authenticity of the Nike goods for sale on its platform, continuing to engage in such improper and unlawful business practices to attract consumers to its platform and induce consumers to purchase supposedly genuine Nike goods and purchase and trade the infringing Nike-branded Vault NFTs.” And still yet, Nike alleges that “the continued sale of counterfeit Nike goods on StockX’s platform and StockX’s false and/or misleading claims about its authentication process has caused and is causing Nike injury as a result of, inter alia, harm to reputation, diverted sales, consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable trademarks.” 

For the foregoing reasons, Nike requests the Court grant it leave to file a first amended complaint. 

In a statement in response to Nike’s filing, a spokesman for StockX stated on Wednesday, “We take customer protection extremely seriously, and we’ve invested millions to fight the proliferation of counterfeit products that virtually every global marketplace faces today. Nike’s latest filing is not only baseless but also is curious given that their own brand protection team has communicated confidence in our authentication program, and that hundreds of Nike employees – including current senior executives – use StockX to buy and sell products. This latest tactic amounts to nothing more than a panicked and desperate attempt to resuscitate its losing legal case against our innovative Vault NFT program that revolutionizes the way that consumers can buy, store, and sell collectibles safely, efficiently, and sustainably. Nike’s challenge has no merit and clearly demonstrates their lack of understanding of the modern Marketplace.”

The case is Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983 (SDNY).

Luxury goods are slated to start flowing back into Russia despite moves by most non-native brands to pull out of the market in the wake of the deadly attacks on Ukraine led by Vladimir Putin. A 25-page list of exempted brands/products has been released by Russia’s Industry and Trade Ministry, allowing for parallel imports of luxury cars from Bentley, Ferrari, and Rolls-Royce, among others, consumer electronics from Apple and Dyson, cosmetics, and fashion and leather goods in furtherance of what Russian authorities say is an attempt to “defend the interests of domestic consumers for products of those foreign companies that left the Russian market under the sanctions regime imposed by ‘unfriendly’ countries.” 

First released by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation last month, the order on parallel imports or “grey market goods” (i.e., genuine branded goods obtained from one market that are subsequently imported into another market and sold there without the consent of the trademark holder) provides that Article 1359 (section 6) and Article 1487 of the Russian Civil Code “are not applied” to the approved list of goods, “provided the specified goods were put into circulation outside Russia by the right holders and with their consent.” In accordance with the principle of trademark exhaustion – or the first sale doctrine, as it is known in the U.S., “the products must be legally put into circulation [in] the country of import,” the trade ministry stated.

The Russian ministry distinguished the new scheme from outright counterfeiting (namely, the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, another’s registered trademark), asserting in a statement late last week that allowing for “parallel imports does not mean permission to import and circulate counterfeit goods in Russia.” 

Fashion and other luxury brands may be hit particularly hard when it comes to the impending push to get parallel imports into Russia. While the official list of allowable products specifically indicates brands of electronics and automobiles, among other categories of goods, that may be imported into Russia without the threat of trademark infringement ramifications, it does not set out a list of fashion/luxury goods purveyors whose goods may be legally imported into Russia. “Clothing, footwear, and leather goods are listed without any specific brand indications,” Maksym Popov, a partner at Mentors Law Firm in Ukraine, tells TFL. This means that “everything within these categories of goods is subject to parallel imports,” which could serve to flood the market with a barrage of luxury goods in the not-too-distant future. (Not the only categories that lack brand specifications, the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s list also allows for the unfettered import of spare parts for certain machinery, for example.)

The situation is likely to be a “complicated” one for brands, Popov says, noting that trademark holders “will not have the ability to control the importation of goods into Russia through distributors,” as has been an issue for brands in other countries, including China, which routinely sees a significant supply of grey market goods coming by way of multi-brand stores in places like Italy and landing on the mainland after passing through agents in Hong Kong.

As an extreme example, he says, “We may even see Louis Vuitton and Chanel bags sold in multi-brand boutiques.”

Given the meticulous control and purely direct-to-consumer distribution model that is exercised by Chanel, Louis Vuitton, and other similarly situated luxury titans, it seems unlikely that these brands will be among the most heavily impacted by the newly-implemented grey market scheme in Russia. (Chanel, after all, made headlines last month for reportedly implementing a process in its own stores outside of Russia “to ask clients for whom we do not know the main residency to confirm that the items they are purchasing will not be used in Russia,” a move that has spurred furor from Russian shoppers in markets, such as France, Italy, China, and Dubai.) Chances are, brands that boast a network of authorized third-party distributors will find their wares are more readily being imported into the Russian market without their authorization.

The order that serves to relax the law on parallel imports comes after the country’s Ministry of Industry and Trade was authorized to compile a list of goods for which parallel imports would be allowed, which was published – and went into effect – on April 19. That list followed from a previous revelation from the ministry in March when its “Priority Action Plan for Ensuring the Development of the Russian Economy in the Conditions of External Sanctions Pressure” revealed that an influx of grey market goods would likely follow from Western brands’ exodus from the Russian market. In the Priority Action Plan, which surfaced in early March, the Ministry appeared to propose suspending liability for parties engaging in parallel imports for certain – but then undefined – “groups of goods,” thereby, potentially opening the door for a greater share of out-of-channel products to flow into Russia, which maintains some restrictions on the sale of grey market goods. 

As TFL first reported at the time, depending on how long the effects of Russian-focused sanctions implemented by the U.S., European Union, and others, last, which ban the import of luxury goods into Russia (and chances are this is not a temporary situation), the luxury goods ecosystem in Russia may begin to mirror that of other markets that are readily flooded with grey market goods. In the event that companies’ self-operated stores do not return in a timely manner, certain brands may opt to look the other way, enabling multi-brand stores in other markets to order excess goods and ship them to Moscow with the help of parallel importers, and enabling the brands to add those excess sales to their balance sheets.

Brands at the top of the luxury totem pole are not expected to engage in such grey market-feeding activity; their recent revenue reports indicate that they are not suffering as a result of a loss of sales in Russia, which accounts for no more than 4 percent of their annual sales. However, that may not be the case for other brands that traditionally maintain larger footprints in Russia and their distributors, which have proven to be far less immune to the pull-out of the Russian market. (Reuters reported recently that in March, adidas, for example, “warned of a hit to sales from closing in Russia, without giving an estimate. It operates 500 stores in the country, a quarter of its total.” Around the same time, toy maker Hasbro warned that its revenues could hit of approximately $100 million this year due to its decision to halt its sales in Russia.)

“Usually, official distributors are interested in fighting illegally imported goods,” Popov says. “But now that anyone can [indirectly] import goods into the country, will they want to fight it?”