🛑 USA - Seafood company implicated in false labeling scam

 

Report on Supply Chain Compliance 3, no. 18 (September 17, 2020)

The treasurer of a North Carolina seafood company, Garland F. Fulcher Seafood Co. Inc. (Garland Fulcher), conspired to mislabel seafood as being domestically produced when some of the seafood processed and sold by the company was cheaper foreign imports. The United States Department of Justice specifically mentioned blue crab, which has been the target for mislabeling and other scams for some time, in a news release.[1]

In 2018, a Virginia-based company, Casey’s Seafood Inc., was also found guilty of mislabeling foreign blue crab. Several other seafood scandals have emerged in recent years as well,[2] including human trafficking in Southeast Asia and a price-fixing scandal in the canned tuna market.

‘Seafood mislabeling is consumer fraud that undermines efforts of hardworking, honest fisherman and the free market by devaluing the price of domestic seafood,’ said U.S. Attorney Robert J. Higdon Jr. for the Eastern District of North Carolina. ‘In this case, the fraudulent scheme artificially deflated the cost of domestic blue crab and gave Styron and Garland Fulcher Seafood an unacceptable and unfair economic advantage over law-abiding competitors.’[3]

1 United States Department of Justice, “Seafood Processor Pleads Guilty to Selling Foreign Crabmeat Falsely Labeled as Blue Crab from USA,” news release, September 3, 2020, https://bit.ly/3hhBJ4a.

2 Sascha Matuszak, “‘Local’ seafood is found to be globally sourced,” Report on Supply Chain Compliance 1, no. 9, (August 17, 2018), https://bit.ly/3bLYtrH.

3 United States Department of Justice, “Seafood Processor Pleads Guilty.”

 

[View source.]

Optimizing Sustainability - Connecting with Influencers

 

Best Food Facts recently hosted nine digital influencers for a Virtual Taste Tour focused on sustainability. Get the details.

The tour, originally planned to be in-person in central Iowa, was reformatted into three virtual discussions focused on these topics:

• Sustainable Food with conversations about food waste, processed foods, biotechnology and food affordability
• Sustainable Egg Farming, providing dialogue on hen housing and impacts on animal well-being, food affordability and natural resources
• Sustainable Crop Farming with a focus on crop practices and environmental stewardship

Eleven experts – including farmers, food manufacturers, registered dieticians, retailers and animal scientists – engaged with candor and authenticity to share how they make sustainability decisions. The experts provided several specific examples of how they weigh benefits and tradeoffs to evaluate the overall sustainability and impacts of decisions around individual practices, products and processes.

The influencers each wrote blog posts about the tour, reaching a combined audience of over 10 million followers. The influencer tour was complemented by a four-part series on Best Food Facts examining sustainability impacts and the topics of grass-fed and grain-fed beef, pesticides and GMOs.

United Soybean Board provided funding for the influencer engagement and content promotion.

https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/optimizing-sustainability/

• • •

European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)

European Food and Feed Law 4/2020 (Vol. 15)

Editorial 

Leonie Evans

Page 315 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/3

Articles

The Origin Declaration of Food and its Primary Ingredients – A Quick Guide on Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and Regulation (EU) 2018/775

Christian Ballke, Maria Kietz

Page 316 – 326 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/4

---

The Distinction Between Medicinal Products and Foodstuffs in Light of Recent German Case Law

Gunnar Sachs, Magdalena Thole

Page 327 – 335 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/5

---

The Response of the EU Agri-Food Chain to the COVID-19 Pandemic:Chronicles from the EU and Selected Member States

Francesco Montanari, Sarah Arayess, Toma Barbarasa, Alberta Clavarino, Inês Ferreira, Aude Mahy, Stelios Margaritis, Alicja Michałowska, Christina Schröck, Arthur Servé, Agnieszka-Szymecka Wesolowska, Cesare Varallo, Pilar Velázquez González

Page 336 – 356 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/6

---

Food Classification Report: The Concept ‘Ultra-Processed’

Carmen Carretero, Ramon Clotet, Yvonne Colomer, Gonzalo García de Fernando, Juana Frías, Juana Frías, Luis González Vaqué, Abel Mariné, Antonio Martínez, Rafael Moreno Rojas, María Jesús Periago, Dolores Rodrigo, Mª Ángeles Romero Rodríguez, Amparo Salvador, Pau Talens Oliag

Page 357 – 362 - https://effl.lexxion.eu/article/EFFL/2020/4/7

Legislation

Page 363 - 364

Jurisdiction

Page 365

Reports

Bulgaria ∙ New Foodstuff Act in Bulgaria

Elena Todorova - Page 366 - 367

---

Spain ∙ Food Classification Controversy  

Cristina Vidreras - Page 368 - 369

---

Portugal ∙ Impact of Covid-19 on the Dietary Habits of the Portuguese Population

Inês Ferreira - Page 370 - 372

---

Poland ∙ Food as an Object of Intellectual Protection: New Courts of Intellectual Property in Poland

Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal - Page 373 - 374

_____________________________________________________

 

Miscellaneous

List of Recent Notifications to the European Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535

Page 375 - 377

---

New Publications

Page 378 - 396

---

European Parliament: MEP’s Questions & Answers

(November 2019 - May 2020)

Page 397 - 417

 

CHINA: Beijing IP court heard a trademark dispute between “Chateau Lafite Rothschild Winery” and “Real Estate Company”

 

On August 7, 2020, the Beijing IP Court made an award in favour of “Château Lafite Rothschild” (Château Lafite), a well-known French winery established in the 18th century. “Château Lafite” sued Huailai Lishihongya Company (怀来利世鸿亚公司) and two other unknown respondents on the grounds of the trademark infringement. The Beijing IP Court compelled the respondents to pay damage loss of 5 million yuan (approximately $720,000) and issued a public apology to the claimant “Château Lafite”.

The respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” specializes in providing clients with a wide range of real estate services like renting apartments, leasing of real estate, management etc. Therefore, this company has registered the trademark “Château Lafite” (the Chinese name - 拉斐) in class 36 under the Nice classification of goods and services. In its turn, the real trademark owner “Château Lafite” has been acquiring a reputation of a good wine producer since the late 1990s. So, this trademark is well-recognized not only by Chinese consumers but also by consumers from all over the world. Furthermore, the trademark has been well-recognized while conducting the trademark administrative review and litigation procedures. The real trademark owner registered trademark “Lafite” (the corresponding Chinese name - 拉菲, registration no.: 1122916 and 6186990) in class 33, which belongs to spirit drinks except for beers.

After the Beijing IP Court conducted a thorough examination of all the facts and pieces of evidence submitted by both parties, the Beijing IP Court came to the conclusion that the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had intentionally copied, imitated and made a translation of the well-known trademark. These aforementioned actions caused to the public’s misleading and “Château Lafite” incurred colossal monetary losses. Hence, the Beijing IP Court approved the respondent “Huailai Lishihongya” had violated the exclusive rights of the real trademark holder, referring to art. 57 of the Trademark Law of China (2019). However, what was more interesting is the court’s decision of this case. The Beijing IP Court didn’t make any statement about immediate removal of the cited trademark from all the products and trademark systems.

August 31 2020

Schmitt & Orlov