AEM vs North Dakota – AEM & Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Case 1:17-cv-00151-DLH-CSM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
AEM vs North Dakota
AEM and Majors Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
AEM along with Deere, CNH, AGCO and Kubota objections to sections which prohibit farm equipment manufacturers from:
-
requiring or attempting to require a farm equipment dealer into a refusal to purchase farm equipment manufactured by another farm equipment manufacturer”
-
requiring a farm equipment dealer to either establish or maintain exclusive facilities, personnel, or display space or to abandon an existing relationship with another manufacturer in order to continue, renew, reinstate, or enter a dealer agreement or to participate in any program discount, credit, rebate, or sales incentive.
-
prohibit farm equipment manufacturers from “requiring the farm equipment dealer to maintain or stock a level of equipment, parts or accessories.
-
prohibit farm equipment manufacturers from “requiring the farm equipment dealer to maintain or stock a level of equipment, parts or accessories.
AEM claims "The No Required Separation of Trademarks Provision of Senate Bill 2289" purports to require the Manufacturers to allow different or competing trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names to be associated with products sold under the Manufacturer’s federal registered trademarks or service marks.
If the Manufacturers cannot control the identity of their trademark licensees, their trademarks will be jeopardized to the point where some Manufacturers would prefer to not license their trademarks at all.
By allowing North Dakota dealers to use the Manufacturers’ trademarks to attract customers and then substitute other manufacturers’ products—as explicitly contemplated by Representative Schreiber Beck—the No Required Separation of Trademark Provision enables trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution in violation of Lanham Act.
In particular, consumers are likely to be confused if dealers are permitted to use a Manufacturer’s trademarks to sell competing products. The public interest is not well served when potential customers are lured onto a competitor’s web site.