Boulter, R. v

Boulter, R. v

Where there is straightforward counterfeiting of goods and their registered trademark, it is not a defence that the quality was so poor as not to give rise to any risk of confusion; liability under section 10(1) is automatic for double identity cases, and the applicant's argument is unsupported by statute or authority.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Applicant: Gary Boulter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting, Section 92(1)(c) Trademark Act 1994, Section 10(1) and 10(2) Trademark Act 1994
Intellectual Property Law Criminal Law Trademark Infringement Counterfeiting Section 92(1)(c) Trademark Act 1994 Section 10(1) and 10(2) Trademark Act 1994

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Gary Boulter

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether poor quality counterfeiting of a trademark can constitute a defence to criminal liability under section 92(1)(c) of the Trademark Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether likelihood of confusion is a necessary element for liability under section 10(1) of the Trademark Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is straightforward counterfeiting of goods and their registered trademark, it is not a defence that the quality was so poor as not to give rise to any risk of confusion; liability under section 10(1) is automatic for double identity cases, and the applicant's argument is unsupported by statute or authority.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed
  • Judgment may be cited in future cases due to possible confusion over section 10(1) and 10(2) distinction