header-logo header-logo

Sentencing counterfeit vendors

09 July 2020
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Draft sentencing guidelines for selling or possessing counterfeit goods intended for sale have been published by the Sentencing Council

Relevant cases would range from selling obviously fake items on a market stall to highly organised businesses selling quality but counterfeit goods such as computer games, car parts and electrical equipment. Director of National Trading Standards Wendy Martin said the guideline would ‘ensure a consistency of approach in sentencing these often complex cases.’

The consultation, ‘Unauthorised use of a trade mark guideline’, ends on 30 September 2020.

Issue: 7894 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll