1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Services In Contract Don't Trump "Non-Manufacturer Rule"

Services In Contract Don't Trump "Non-Manufacturer Rule"

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 09.13.06

In Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States (July 24, 2006), a pre-award bid protest of small business set-aside procurements, the Court of Federal Claims held that the Small Business Act's "non-manufacturer rule" requires recipients of small business set-aside contracts to provide products only of domestic small business manufacturers, even if the contract is for both products and services. Finding, inter alia, that the statute is "clear and unambiguous" in its application of the rule to "any" contract for the supply of a product, Judge Bush rejected government pleas for deference to SBA's less-restrictive applications of the rule and permanently enjoined set-aside awards to offerors who failed to certify compliance.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....

View All Insights