Essex Trading Standards v Singh: Admn 3 Mar 2009

The defendant had been accused of selling counterfeit trainer shoes. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the defenant had not known that they were counterfeit.
Held: The onus of proof lay on the defendant to establish on objectively reasonable grounds that these were genuine goods. No reasonable bench could have concluded that he had such positive reason, and therefore the prosecutor’s appeal succeeded.

Goldring LJ, Sweeney J
[2009] EWHC 520 (Admin)
Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1)(c)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
CitedRegina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.323735