×
150
Fashion Jobs
SAROJ JALAN
Marketing Strategist
Permanent · KOLKATA
ADD UR CO LLP
Production Manager
Permanent · Chennai
THE GLOBAL ZONE HR SERVICES
Production Manager/ Supervisor/ Incharge
Permanent · Pune
PUMA
Manager - Digital Marketing
Permanent · Bengaluru
THE BANYAN HR CONSULTS
Brand Manager For Leading Women's Wear Garments CO at Coimbatore
Permanent · Coimbatore
LEVI'S
Manager, Retail Merchandising (Ebo)
Permanent · Bengaluru
GLAN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY
Senior Buyer Lingerie (Knits Western Wear) - Retail Brand
Permanent · GURUGRAM
JOB INDIA
Asst. Manager E-Com Operations (Garments Retail) Gurgaon
Permanent · Faridabad
VASTRAKALA EXPORTS
Quality Manager
Permanent · CHENNAI
PEOPLE ALLIANCE WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED
Manager / in Charge - Production/Quality/Cutting - Garments Industry
Permanent · Bhiwandi
MINT AND MILK COMMUNICATIONS
Senior Account Executive
Permanent · MUMBAI
PUMA
Manager- Buying (Apparel)
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager- Business Intelligence
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager- Trade Compliance
Permanent · Bengaluru
LEVI'S
Technical Product Manager
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager- Supply Planning
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Senior Manager - Performance Marketing- Marketplac…
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Regional Sales Manager- Mbo (South)
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager- Returns And Spf Operations
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager Merchandising
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Project Manager- Operations
Permanent · Bengaluru
PUMA
Manager- Logistics Operations
Permanent · Bengaluru
By
Reuters
Published
Sep 18, 2014
Reading time
2 minutes
Share
Download
Download the article
Print
Click here to print
Text size
aA+ aA-

Gucci, Tiffany dealt blow in fake goods case against China banks

By
Reuters
Published
Sep 18, 2014

NEW YORK, United States - Luxury goods retailers Gucci and Tiffany failed to persuade a U.S. appeals court to require major Chinese banks to freeze the assets of alleged counterfeiters in a pair of cases that have drawn the attention of U.S. and Chinese regulators.



The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York directed two lower court judges on Wednesday to reexamine whether they had the authority to force compliance with court orders freezing accounts in China in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting federal court jurisdiction over foreign corporations.

A lawyer for the retailers declined to comment. A lawyer for the banks did not respond to a request for comment.

New York courts have grappled recently with whether foreign-based banks can be forced to comply with orders freezing overseas assets. On Tuesday, New York State's highest court heard arguments on whether state law prohibits a Motorola subsidiary from freezing the assets of a Turkish family held in the United Arab Emirates by Standard Chartered Bank.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York backed foreign banks in a similar case, warning that subjecting bank headquarters to U.S. law via their New York City branches could imperil the city's status as a global financial center.

In the current litigation, Tiffany & Co and several subsidiaries of French conglomerate Kering SA, including Gucci Group, Bottega Veneta and Yves Saint Laurent, filed lawsuits in New York several years ago against numerous Chinese entities, claiming they sold counterfeit goods online.

The companies asserted the counterfeiters kept their profits in accounts at state-controlled Bank of China Ltd, China Merchants Bank Co Ltd and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd.

Two district judges in New York, Richard Sullivan and Naomi Reice Buchwald, separately granted the bid to freeze the funds in 2011 and 2012.

The banks appealed, arguing Chinese banking law prohibited compliance, and that U.S. courts could not exercise jurisdiction over them simply because they had branches in New York.

The 2nd Circuit held the defendants were clearly subject to U.S. jurisdiction. But the court said it was not clear whether the banks themselves were also subject to the judges' authority, citing the Supreme Court's January decision in a case involving German-based automaker Daimler AG.

The Supreme Court held that foreign corporations cannot be sued in the United States unless they have substantial business there. Owning a U.S. subsidiary is not enough on its own.

The 2nd Circuit instructed Sullivan and Buchwald to consider, among other things, whether the banks intentionally aided the alleged counterfeiters in violating the freeze order; the nature of the banks' U.S. business and whether requiring compliance would undermine Chinese law.

The 2nd Circuit cases are Gucci America et al. v. Li et al., 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3934, and Tiffany et al. v. Forbse et al. in the same court, No. 12-2317.


 

© Thomson Reuters 2022 All rights reserved.