Osawa & Company v. B & H Photo
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
589 F. Supp. 1163 (1984)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Osawa & Co. (plaintiff) was the registered owner of the Mamiya trademarks in the United States, which was used on sophisticated camera equipment manufactured and imported from the Mamiya Camera Co. in Japan. Osawa distributed the Mamiya equipment through authorized camera dealers who, at the order of Osawa, offered considerable services to their customers. To further promote the trademarks, Osawa itself offered warranty repair service and promotional rebates; organized educational seminars to inform users, dealers, and potential customers of the complex capabilities of the Mamiya equipment; and spent considerable sums in advertising. Meanwhile, B & H Photo (defendant) was a discount camera dealer and former authorized dealer of the Mamiya equipment. Osawa terminated the dealership after it discovered that B & H was importing and selling genuine Mamiya equipment in the United States at retail prices far below the prices of authorized dealers. As a result, Osawa suffered a decline in sales, was forced to lay off personnel, including a significant portion of its warranty repair personnel, and lost authorized dealers. Osawa brought suit to enjoin B & H from importing and selling genuine Mamiya equipment bearing the same trademarks lawfully applied abroad on the part of the Mamiya Camera Co.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.