SHIM PACK 9M5874 - Caterpillar

The 'sting' puts a stop to some
In 1982, Eugene Goodale, patent and trademark attorney for Caterpillar Tractor Co. was given a plastic package supposedly containing a Caterpillar fuel injector nozzle. It was almost an exact duplicate of Caterpillar's own packaging, with minute differences that only a trained eye could detect.
"I work with this every day," says Goodale, "and it was difficult for me to spot the differences immediately. The untrained eye of the customer would not spot those differences."
The nozzle itself was also a close duplicate, including the Caterpillar trademark, the Caterpillar part number-and a telltale code number that Caterpillar had never used.
Goodale called the Caterpillar manufacturing plant to find out why it had made the changes. It had not.
After an investigation involving detectives and a "sting" operation (since a buy had to be made), Caterpillar personnel-accompanied by a U.S. marshall with a federal court order-raided a Los Angeles company.
They found and confiscated 1,500 counterfeit injector nozzles, 68,000 polyethelene parts packages imprinted with the Caterpillar trademark, 14,000 pressure-sensitive Caterpillar labels, plus numerous boxes and rubber stamps with Caterpillar trademarks and part numbers.
After the sting: Packing and shipping department of a counterfeit operation in Los Angeles was equipped with rubber stamps bearing Caterpillar part numbers and stamping equipment set up for Caterpillar labels. Raid on the operation netted 1,500 counterfeit injector nozzles, 68,000 polyethelene packages bearing the Caterpillar trademark and 14,000 "Caterpillar" labels.Further investigation disclosed that the counterfeiting operation's "manufacturing" sources included at least one company in Italy and two in California. Its marketing efforts (price bulletins) covered the globe.
Engineering tests conducted by Caterpillar revealed numerous manufacturing defects in the nozzles that could have resulted in misfiring, lower horsepower, fuel pump failure, crankcase oil dilution and immediate piston seizure.
Caterpillar issued press releases and bulletins to dealers and customers worldwide, alerting them to the problem. Through court action, Caterpillar also halted the company's counterfeiting activity, although the firm is still in business.
"They were a legitimate operation before and we have every reason to believe they're a legitimate operation now," says Goodale. Caterpillar sought a permanent injunction and also asked for monetary damages which, at the time, was the only "punishment" possible for counterfeiting. (Under new anti-counterfeiting law, it would have been a criminal offense.)
Goodale explains that Caterpillar did not pursue the damage suit simply because "it would have been a very expensive proceeding. But at least we accomplished what we set out to do."
An isolated incident? Goodale can prove otherwise. Working with another engine manufacturer, Caterpillar recently uncovered another counterfeit operation in Brooklyn. This time, the company was buying parts from a variety of sources and labeling them according to customer (mostly overseas jobbers and distributors) demand.
James Snow, manager of packaging and processing control for Caterpillar, worked with a private investigator in this "sting" operation and participated in the subsequent raid. He describes a somewhat untidy warehouse and a "couple of likable guys."
Caterpillar and its ally were only allowed to confiscate boxes or labels with their trademarks. Still, the