We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
27 October 2008
In July 2008, after considering appeals brought by the public prosecutor and the companies Nokia Corporation and Nokia GmbH against a criminal court judgment, the Madrid Court of Appeal issued a judgment sentencing the accused for the criminal offences of design infringement (contrary to Article 273(3) of the Criminal Code) and trademark infringement (contrary to Article 274(2)).
The court of appeal overturned the criminal court judgment and sentenced the accused to:
In addition, it ordered the accused to pay over €55,000 in damages, as well as the costs of the first instance trial and the appeal.
Proceedings began following two police raids carried out at the Madrid sales establishment of the accused in which 13,000 counterfeit Nokia mobile phone covers were seized.
After analyzing the evidence, the court of appeal considered that all the requirements of Articles 273(3) and 274(2) were fulfilled, and that therefore the accused had committed a criminal offence in selling identical products or products which have easily confused designs (Article 273(3)) or display previously registered trademarks (Article 274(4)), knowingly or without the authorization of the trademark holder.
The criminal court, which surprisingly did not consider the possible crime of design infringement, had found the accused not guilty of trademark infringement on taking into account that the seized covers were not exact copies of the original because of their price, their place of sale and their presentation to the public. In its opinion they were outright imitations and not counterfeit products, so there was no risk of confusion with the original products. The court then applied the so-called ‘theory of consumer error’, according to which no crime is committed if the consumer knows that he or she is purchasing a counterfeit product.
The court of appeal plainly rejected this approach, ruling that the quality of a counterfeit product is irrelevant when analyzing whether use of a trademark or design constitutes a criminal offence. It considered that the legislative body intended to protect the exclusive rights of intellectual property owners - whether a consumer knows that he or she is buying a counterfeit product is irrelevant.
Therefore, the court of appeal considered that the accused had infringed Nokia’s exclusive trademark rights under Article 274(2), regardless of the quality of the products or their presentation, as the NOKIA trademark appeared on some of the seized covers.
With regard to the accusation of design infringement under Article 273(3), the court found that all the necessary elements, objective and subjective, were present.
Regarding the objective element, the court considered it proven that the accused possessed covers which displayed Nokia's registered designs with a view to selling them and that he had acted without the consent of the trademark holder.
With regard to the subjective element, the court considered that bad faith was sufficiently clear, not only because NOKIA is a well-known trademark and the accused sold mobile telephone products, making him well acquainted with the sector, but also because of the circumstances following the first of the two raids in which a notice was found in his sales establishment offering covers for Nokia models at reduced prices.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.