In a statement Edge, A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection has defended the seizure of 2,000 pairs of OnePlus buds by the agency at JFK Airport on Aug. 31. Last night, the CBP announced the action and called OnePlus Buds “fake Apple Paul AirPods,” which sparked a wave of controversy. It sounded like a potential gaff by border officials who somehow had no idea they were blocking the original product, and even OnePlus has been mocked for finding itself in this situation, due to the similarities between its own airbuds and airpods.
But the CBP’s statement seems to deny that this was a mistake. What remains unanswered is why OnePlus Buds did such an investigation – weeks later they moved to the U.S. Went to sell in – while the market is flooded with airpods knockoffs.
“After examining the shipment in question, the CBP import expert determined that the subject’s earbuds violated the Apple Pal configuration trademark. Apple Pal has a configuration trademark on their brand’s earbuds, and records those trademarks with CBP, ”the spokesperson said. If you are wondering, the configuration trademarks cover the general appearance of the product. “Based on that determination, CBP officers at JFK Airport seized the shipment under 19 USC 1526 (e).”
A CBP spokesperson also tried to take into account the general fact that many people have come across this phenomenon: Can’t their officials say that OnePlus Buds is a real product (and not a “fake” presented as airpods) by looking at and branding? “The seizure of CBP’s earbuds in question has nothing to do with the images or language on the box, the company does not need to put the ‘Apple Moment’ wordmark or design on their products in violation of this trademark.”
According to a CBP spokesperson, OnePlus (or anyone who has imported OnePlus buds) will have ample opportunity through the judicial process to provide evidence or not to violate recorded trademarks related to their product. Arriving early today, OnePlus declined to comment on the seizure. Seeing CBP’s statement, the company again refused.
