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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll