In an October 2020 judgment the Civil and Criminal Section of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid largely dismissed the brief of appeal filed by the defendant against the convictional judgment, by which the Provincial Court of Madrid had sentenced him to a two-year prison sentence, a fine and payment of the damage compensation and legal costs of private prosecution for the commercialisation of products that infringed Adidas's Community trademarks and designs.
In February 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal against a judgment from the High Court of the Valencian Community confirming the first-instance judgment issued in 2019 by the Provincial Court of Valencia condemning the defendants for an 18-month prison sentence and for the payment of a fine, the transport and destruction costs, as well as the legal costs (including the private prosecutor's costs) for the import of counterfeit shoes for commercial purposes that infringed adidas's brands and designs.
The Valencia Court of Appeal, acting as a trial court, recently sentenced two defendants to one-and-a-half years in prison for importing thousands of pairs of counterfeit shoes for commercial purposes. The court also ordered the defendants to pay a fine, procedural costs and damages and destruction costs. This is one of the first judgments to be issued by an appeal court acting as a trial court in an IP criminal case.
The Zaragoza Court of Appeal recently issued a ruling confirming a trial court judgment which had sentenced two defendants for importing several thousand counterfeit t-shirts from China. In their appeal against the trial court's condemnatory judgment, the defendants had argued that the trial court erred in assessing the evidence, that there had been a break in the custody chain of the seized goods, that one of the defendants had not participated in the importation and that there had been no consumer error.
The Barcelona Court of Appeal recently dismissed the writ of appeal filed by an online seller of counterfeit shoes against a trial court judgment, confirming the judgment in its entirety. Notably, the trial court had applied the damages criterion provided for in Article 43.2.b of the Trademark Act as opposed to that provided for in Article 43.2.a, which is more commonly applied in criminal cases and comprises the profits which a trademark owner would have made had a counterfeiting offence not occurred.