Trademark Counterfeit Goods Enforcement And Criminal Sanctions.
Trademark Counterfeit Goods Enforcement and Criminal Sanctions
Overview
Trademark law protects consumers and businesses by preventing unauthorized use of marks that cause confusion about the source of goods or services. Counterfeit goods are unauthorized copies of branded products intended to mislead consumers. Most jurisdictions, including India and the U.S., provide civil remedies (damages, injunctions) and criminal sanctions (fines, imprisonment) to enforce trademark rights.
Key aspects of enforcement include:
Civil Remedies: Injunctions, damages, accounts of profits.
Criminal Remedies: Imprisonment and fines for producing, selling, or distributing counterfeit goods.
Border and Customs Measures: Seizure and destruction of counterfeit imports.
Police and Regulatory Action: Prosecution under specific IP statutes (e.g., Section 63–65 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 or Lanham Act Sections 32, 34–36 in the U.S.).
Key Legal Provisions for Criminal Enforcement
India:
Section 102 – Offence for falsifying trademarks or selling goods with a falsified trademark.
Section 103 – Punishment for infringement of registered trademarks.
Section 135–136 – Confiscation of goods and criminal penalties for repeated violations.
United States:
Lanham Act § 2320 – Criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit goods, including fines and imprisonment.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) powers – Seizure and destruction of imported counterfeit goods.
Case Law Examples
1. Cartier International AG v. Bharat Silver Impex (India, 2012)
Facts:
Bharat Silver was selling watches bearing the “Cartier” mark without authorization.
The goods were seized by customs.
Court Decision:
Delhi High Court held that the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark is a criminal offence under Section 102 of the Trademarks Act.
Ordered seizure of goods and permanent injunction against further infringement.
Significance:
Reinforced customs enforcement as a first line of defense.
Criminal liability attaches even if the infringer claims ignorance of trademark registration.
2. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Veerasamy (India, 2013)
Facts:
Veerasamy sold bags imitating Louis Vuitton’s logo.
Plaintiffs alleged both civil and criminal liability.
Court Decision:
The Court recognized intent to deceive consumers as key for criminal liability.
Defendant was liable for both civil damages and criminal sanctions under Section 103.
Significance:
Clarified that the mens rea (intent) is crucial in criminal prosecution for counterfeiting.
Civil remedies alone are insufficient for repeat offenders.
3. Microsoft Corp v. Ahmed (India, 2015)
Facts:
Ahmed was selling pirated Microsoft software in bulk.
Court Decision:
The Court ordered confiscation of all infringing copies.
Criminal charges were imposed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act (overlaps with trademark when software logos are involved).
Significance:
Demonstrates overlap between trademark and copyright enforcement in counterfeit goods.
Confiscation and criminal sanctions act as deterrents against large-scale infringement.
4. Gucci America, Inc. v. Wang (U.S., 2007)
Facts:
Wang imported and sold handbags imitating Gucci products.
Court Decision:
U.S. District Court held Wang liable for trafficking in counterfeit goods under Lanham Act § 2320.
Ordered statutory damages of $1.5 million and criminal prosecution referral.
Significance:
Demonstrates that high-value counterfeit goods trigger both civil damages and criminal prosecution.
Highlights cross-border enforcement via customs.
5. Christian Dior Couture S.A. v. Yongsheng (U.S., 2011)
Facts:
Yongsheng manufactured and exported counterfeit Dior handbags to the U.S.
Court Decision:
Court granted injunction, seizure of goods, and criminal referral under U.S. federal law.
Emphasized intentional counterfeiting as a key factor for criminal sanctions.
Significance:
Criminal sanctions act as a deterrent for international counterfeit networks.
Reinforces the role of federal agencies (e.g., CBP, FBI) in enforcement.
Principles Highlighted by Case Law
Intent Matters: Courts look for intent to deceive. Honest mistakes rarely trigger criminal liability.
Seizure & Confiscation: Civil remedies alone are insufficient; physical confiscation of counterfeit goods is critical.
Customs and Border Enforcement: Both India and the U.S. use customs authorities to stop import/export of counterfeit goods.
Overlap of Civil and Criminal Remedies: Many cases involve parallel civil suits and criminal prosecutions.
Repeat Offenders Face Harsher Sanctions: Courts impose higher fines and imprisonment for habitual infringers.
Conclusion
Criminal enforcement against counterfeit goods is a strong deterrent for trademark violations. Courts in India and the U.S. consistently hold that:
Selling counterfeit goods is both a civil and criminal offence.
Enforcement involves seizures, fines, imprisonment, and sometimes both civil damages and criminal prosecution.
High-value or repeat violations often lead to severe penalties.
The combination of case law, statutory provisions, and enforcement mechanisms ensures robust protection of trademarks against counterfeiting, especially in luxury and high-tech goods markets.
RELATED Blog
comments