Ms. Alvarez defintion on branding speaks for itself. I quote ‘
“Your brand is your promise to your customer. It tells them what they can expect from your product and services and it differentiates your offering from that of your competitor. Your brand is derived from who you are , who you want to be and what people perceive you to be ” Guam Premier Chocolate , Guam USA Dried Fruit , Guam Tropical Cookies is Ms. Alvarez saying that she wants our tourists to come to Guam and have them “perceive” that they are buying one of the above mentioned items as if it was made here ? When in fact they are products of foreign countries. Ms.Alvarez this is called by law deceptive labelling. Please reference the Lanham Act and Made In the USA Federal Laws that apply to the territories.

Ms.Alvarez states that this practice exists worldwide , pretty strong statement , unfortuantely not true. Besides the two federal stautes listed above that state you can not make reference or imply by using U.S. symbols , geographic locations that would deceive a customer that these are of U.S origin , example try labelling a product California Chocolate that is made in China and bring it to California it will never clear U.S. Customs.

Lets take a quick at Hawaii Law , HR 486-119 Ms. Alvarez should be very familiar with this law as this law states you can not use the word Hawaii or imply by any means that the product is from Hawaii unless it is made in Hawaii , one of the reasons Ms.Alvarez brand Hawaii USA is no longer allowed entry into Hawaii.

Souvenier items as from my understanding will not fall into the same category as edible items when proposed legislation is presented.

Of course the scare tactic of lost revenue is just that a scare tactic.

This is only a short synopsis to clarify some of the mis-leading statements made by Ms. Alvarez. I am positive they will all be addressed atthe appropriate time.