header-logo header-logo

05 August 2021
Issue: 7944 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Crackdown on counterfeit goods

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll