between the TIC TAC mints sold by Ferrero U.S.A. and those sold by Ozak. Although we earlier upheld the district court’s conclusion that the differences in composition between the two types of TIC TAC mints qualified as “material,” it does not follow that Ozak’s importation of the U.K. TIC TAC mints rises to the level of bad faith, malice, fraud, or even willfulness. The liability issue was a close one, since the parallel importation of genuine goods that do not materially differ from their domestic counterparts does not violate the Lanham Act. See Weil Ceramics, 878 F.2d 659. When Ozak began importing U.K. TIC TAC mints on December 30,1986, the legality of importation of gray market goods was unsettled. See NEC Elecs. v. Cal Circuit Abco, 810 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 1987), (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 851, 108 S.Ct. 152, 98
holding that  157d required withdrawing reference where bankruptcy court faced lanham act claim partly involving the issue of secondary meaning because interpreting lanham act provisions to a given set of facts is generally neither simple nor straightforward holding that parallel importation of genuine goods does not violate lanham act holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that the fact that parallel proceedings force a defendant to make a difficult choice as to whether to testify does not of itself violate the constitution holding that lanham act claim was not prohibited due to fact that author had not registered copyright