header-logo header-logo

Crackdown on counterfeit goods

05 August 2021
Issue: 7944 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Counterfeiters who run a sophisticated operation or risk significant harm will receive tougher sentences up to a maximum of ten years or an unlimited fine, under Sentencing Council guidelines

Risk of significant harm would include risk of serious physical harm or death to end users. The guidelines, launched this week and scheduled to apply from 1 October, apply to the offence of using a trade mark without consent. They will replace the current guideline published in 2008, which only applies to individuals and is used only in magistrates’ courts.

The proposed new guidelines assess harm based on monetary value, with seriousness increased by any significant harm suffered by the trade mark owner or risk incurred by the purchaser or end user. They will apply to organisations as well as individuals for the first time and to Crown Court cases.

The starting point for an organisation running a £2m counterfeit operation would be a fine in the range of £150,000 to £450,000. For an individual, it would be three to seven years in custody.

Sentencing Council member, District Judge Mike Fanning said the guidelines ‘will enable courts to impose sentences that are consistent and proportionate in these cases which can be complicated and, by reason of the relative infrequency with which they come before the courts, unfamiliar to many sentencers’.

Counterfeit goods can include car parts and electrical equipment as well as toys and clothes, and are unlikely to have completed the relevant safety tests.

Prosecutions are relatively rare. In 2019, about 370 individuals were sentenced. More than a third received a community sentence, 31% received a fine, 17% received a suspended sentence, five per cent were discharged, six per cent received an alternative disposal such as confiscation or one day in police cells, and four per cent went to prison for an average of one year. The longest sentence was 36 months.

Issue: 7944 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll