LE Case Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A. (08-1423)
By
Bolang Chen

1. The facts of the case:

Omega is a famous watch manufacturer company in the world. All of Omega watches are produced in Switzerland. Omega sells its products to all of the world through authorized wholesalers and retailers. Each of the Omega watches is engraved with the words "Omega Globe Design” on the back of it. And it means the copyright law in America protects the watch. Costco is a well-known wholesale warehouse store. They purchased Omega watches through an unknown third party company in the New York, and sold these watches in the United States, and the watches price was cheaper than many other American distributor's price. Many years ago, Omega gave Costco the authorization to sell the watches in the foreign market, but they did not give them a mandate for sale in the United States. So, Omega sued Costco to the US District Court for the Central District of California. Omega thought that Costco's behavior has constituted infringement. Although they authorized Costco to sell watches in foreign countries, they did not authorize them to sell in the United States. But Costco said that, according to the 109 (a), called the first sale doctrine. Because Omega allowed Costco to sell them products the first time, they cannot limit Costco to make importation, sales and other acts, which means that Omega has no right to stop Costco from selling their watch. The US District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of Costco without explanation

Omega appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court’s final ruling claimed that Omega won. First, the judge considered this case did not apply to the law 109 (a) because Omega is a foreign company that produces goods into the United States, but is not "lawfully made.” Costco then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Finally, The Supreme Court maintained the Ninth Circuit Court's decision and Costco’s violation of the United States’ copyright law on December 13 in 2010.

2. There are several problems in the court judgment process: (1). Most importantly, before this case, there was a similar case called the Quality King case. Can this case be applied to one decision? (2) .Can the bill of 109 (a) called the first sale doctrine be considered legitimate to Costco’s behavior? (3). Is this a reasonable judgment on this case, only relying on the 109 (a) bill?

3 Why did the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court make this decision? First, The District Court for the Central District of California made a judgment only in 109 (a) of the Act, but because 109 (a) Act generally restricts section 106 (3) and 602 (a) Act, and Omega thought the lawsuit was based on these two bills, the circuit court dismissed the original cases. Second, the circuit court referred to a similar case: Quality King. Although Quality King’s case does conform to the 109 (a) Act, they also purchased from third-party markets and sold it in the United States. But the goods