Feeds

HMRC can't corral non-EU counterfeits

High Court regretfully rules

The smart choice: opportunity from uncertainty

Customs authorities do not have the power to seize goods that enter the UK in transit from a non-European Union country to another non-EU country even if they know they are counterfeit, the High Court has said.

The Court backed the view of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that it cannot hold the goods because they will never go on the market in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.

Goods can only be held if they are counterfeit, the Court and HMRC said, and they can only be counterfeit if they violate a company's trade marks. But trade mark rights can only be violated 'in the course of trade', so goods never intended for UK sale cannot be in violation of UK trade mark rights.

A consignment of 400 Nokia mobile phones was inspected and seized by HMRC at Heathrow Airport last year as they were transported from Hong Kong to Colombia. Nokia confirmed that the phones were fakes and asked HMRC to impound them under The Counterfeit Goods Regulation.

HMRC took legal advice and told Nokia that it could not keep the goods because they could only be counterfeits under UK law if they infringed trade marks, which could only happen if trading took place.

Nokia took the case to the High Court where Mr Justice Kitchin agreed with the HMRC that it did not have the power to keep hold of the phones.

"Clearly any power of arrest or detention of goods by HMRC must be exercised in accordance with law," he said in his ruling. "It must have a clear basis for interfering with the property of a third party."

The judge looked at previous rulings and said that they backed HMRC's case. "Infringement of registered trade mark requires goods to be placed on the market and that goods in transit and subject to suspensive customs procedures do not, without more, satisfy this requirement," he said. "A mere risk that the goods may be diverted is not sufficient to justify a conclusion that the goods have been or will be put on the market."

Nokia had argued that the Counterfeit Goods Regulation gave customs authorities the power to seize goods in transit. The Court agreed, but said that the phones did not qualify for that kind of seizure.

"It is clear that the situations set out in Article 1 [of the Regulation] for action by customs authorities include goods in transit and goods the subject of suspensive procedures," said Mr Justice Kitchin. "The same appears from the recitals. They too contemplate customs authorities taking action against goods in all those situations. But it is important to note that Article 1 and the recitals are all qualified by the requirement that the goods must be counterfeit goods, pirate goods or otherwise infringe an intellectual property right."

"They provide no support for the notion that the Regulation is intended to empower customs authorities to take action against goods which do not infringe an intellectual property right and, more specifically in the case of counterfeit goods, to take action against goods which do not infringe a trade mark," he said.

The Court recognized that if there is a risk that the goods will be sold in the EU then authorities can impound them, but said that that was not the case here. "I have no evidence before me to suggest that there is any real prospect of the illicit diversion onto the market in the Community of goods which are in transit through the UK," he said.

Mr Justice Kitchin concluded that HMRC had no right to keep the phones, but regretted that this was the case.

"I must refuse Nokia's application for judicial review, based as it is upon the proper interpretation of the Counterfeit Goods Regulation," he said. "I recognise that this result is not satisfactory. I can only hope it provokes a review of the adequacy of the measures available to combat the international trade in fake goods by preventing their transhipment through Member States."

See: The ruling

Copyright © 2009, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications

More from The Register

next story
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
HP, Microsoft prove it again: Big Business doesn't create jobs
SMEs get lip service - what they need is dinner at the Club
ITC: Seagate and LSI can infringe Realtek patents because Realtek isn't in the US
Land of the (get off scot) free, when it's a foreign owner
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
UK.gov's Open Source switch WON'T get rid of Microsoft, y'know
What do you mean, we've ditched Redmond in favour of IBM?!
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Putin: Crack Tor for me and I'll make you a MILLIONAIRE
Russian Interior Ministry offers big pile o' roubles for busting pro-privacy browser
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.