Distribution Will Again Be Priority in 2018
In addition to the possibility of comprehensive tax reform in 2018, the issues we have followed in this publication and at our meetings in 2017 will remain front burner issues in the new year.
On tax reform, we will monitor how changes will be implemented, the effect on businesses, and the impact on the federal budget, which of course has implications for the 2018 Farm Bill.
|
Case 1:17-cv-00151-DLH-CSM
UNITED STATES AEM v North Dakota
Link: Document 69 Filed 12/08/17
AEM and Majors Proposed |
Beyond taxes, distribution remains a major concern for our members. What one of our members described as “the North Dakota legal soap opera” continued to develop this past week. More than 200 pages of new documents were filed in federal court by both sides in AEM vs. North Dakota. These most recent filings deal with AEM’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring SB 2289 from taking effect until the courts rule on the constitutional challenges. The documents also make clear what rules of law AEM and the multi-national tractor corporations want to apply to distribution in the future. |
AEM, along with Deere, CNH, AGCO and Kubota, lay out their objections to these sections of the new law.
- Prohibits manufacturers from requiring or attempting to require a farm equipment dealer to refuse to purchase farm equipment manufactured by another farm equipment manufacturer.
- Prohibits manufacturers from 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.
- Prohibits farm equipment manufacturers from requiring the farm equipment dealer to maintain or stock a level of equipment, parts or accessories.
AEM further claims “The No Required Separation of Trademarks Provision of Senate Bill 2289” purports to require 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.
AEM’s suit continues to take the position that allowing North Dakota dealers to use manufacturers’ trademarks to attract customers, and then substitute other manufacturers’ products enables trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. In particular, consumers are likely to be confused if dealers are permitted to use a manufacturer’s trademarks to sell competing products.
The state of North Dakota, with the North Dakota Implement Dealers Association, argues that Senate Bill 2289 benefits farmers, rural communities, and the state economy in addition to equipment dealers. Moreover, there is no reasonable concern of customer confusion resulting from farm equipment dealers housing more than one farm implement brand at a single location.
We need to be very clear that the Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association is NOT a party to the action taken by AEM and the major tractor manufacturers it represents. We remain very concerned with arguments made to defend what we call “dealer purity,” which is what we believe this suit seeks under the protection of federal trademark law.
One additional item that will not change in 2018 is our Association’s exclusive dedication to supporting the interest of shortline equipment manufacturers. We know that by working with independent dealers, our members will continue to bring choice, value and innovation to agriculture for years to come.