Fujifilm is Suing More Than 50 Grey Market Camera Sellers For Unfair Competition

fijifilm logo

Worldipreview reported that Fujifilm is filing lawsuits against more than 50 grey market sellers in the US:

“Digital camera manufacturer Fujifilm has targeted more than 50 defendants in an action for unfair competition. Filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Tuesday, October 11, Fujifilm’s suit alleged that the defendants, which include retailers, wilfully imported and sold grey market cameras. According to Fujifilm, the cameras physically and materially differ from products authorized for import to and sale in the US.”

Fujifilm has been very litigious lately and I am not sure the bad PR is going to be worth the results if they should win. Canon filed and Olympus have filed similar suites in the past.

Via ThephoblographerPhotographybay, Photorumors.

This entry was posted in Press releases. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Geoff Neuer

    I have to be very honest here, I know nothing of legal litigation or tax law in nearly all manners, so that’s the beat here. Now, ignore Fuji for second or any other particular player or even product, here’s what my mind is wondering….

    If I charge more for selling something with a warranty, taxes change. If I include this price into a product with no exemption and never warrant it, how do my taxes change? Can I force a warranty onto the buyer, write those numbers on taxes, never meet expectations of the warranty then continue to represent as if I am? Something seems artificial here, even if it is a luxury item.

    Seriously, I know nothing of all this. Then something doesn’t sit right with me on another point, which is the fact that I never had an option to purchase the warranty/insurance. If I sought warranty/insurance that is one thing, but if it is forced shouldn’t a buyer be able to list the forced cost on his/her taxes?

    Anyone know the real reason Canon dropped their lawsuit?

    • I actually am a Lawyer… there are a ton of interesting and somewhat academic arguments surrounding these issues, but generally speaking they are rarely litigated far enough to provide clarity. Eg the defendant runs out of money and settles.

      Companies that pursue little guys too much get a bad name fast. I really do not like practicing because my areas of interest require very deep pockets to fully litigate and clients are generally not looking to clarify the law as much as “win”… in the past big law firms might eat the cost to provide clarity, but that has become less common. Many practice on their own or in a small firm today.

      I actually just finished a Florida Bar CLE about appeals yesterday and over half the room had their own practice.

      I could spend more time digging into the cases above, but that’s too much like work and I’ll probably just get upset about how it was litigated. If you care about issues like these the fastest way to provide clarity would be legislation.