Intellectual property owners and lawful seizure of 'fake' property in the UK

googler

There was a documentary about the music biz many years ago, and one episode focused on Metallica at Milton Keynes.

There were at least two instances caught on camera where the on site security confiscated unlicensed merchandise which infringed M's trademarks from the casual sellers, with no hint that they were waiting for, nor applying for, court orders .....

mo786uk

googler wrote: »

There was a documentary about the music biz many years ago, and one episode focused on Metallica at Milton Keynes.

There were at least two instances caught on camera where the on site security confiscated unlicensed merchandise which infringed M's trademarks from the casual sellers, with no hint that they were waiting for, nor applying for, court orders .....

I guess those were people selling fake merchandise inside the groudns of the arena

Although they may not technically have the pwoer to seize I think that is different from what teh Op was envisaging - which was a general righto seize stuff wherever you are.

halibut2209

googler wrote: »

There was a documentary about the music biz many years ago, and one episode focused on Metallica at Milton Keynes.

There were at least two instances caught on camera where the on site security confiscated unlicensed merchandise which infringed M's trademarks from the casual sellers, with no hint that they were waiting for, nor applying for, court orders .....

And there are many other incidents of pubs "confiscating" alcohol from people who have brought in their own, or supermarket security guards detaining people. Doesn't make it legal.

shaun_from_Africa

googler wrote: »

There was a documentary about the music biz many years ago, and one episode focused on Metallica at Milton Keynes.

There were at least two instances caught on camera where the on site security confiscated unlicensed merchandise which infringed M's trademarks from the casual sellers, with no hint that they were waiting for, nor applying for, court orders .....

As the selling of counterfeit goods is a criminal offence, the security staff were probably fairly confident that the sellers who had their goods taken wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss and go to the police about it.

AlAlbert

ThumbRemote wrote: »

As far as I am aware, the answer to your questions 1 and 2 is 'no'.

Such actions appear to lean towards vigilante-ism. The responsibility for enforcing the law is with the responsible authorities, not the people the law protects.

That is my impression too but I am looking for references and evidence to either support it or refute it. So far, no evidence (only hearsay and claims) has been found to refute it.

AlAlbert

Hintza wrote: »

You can hardly expect the manufacturer to send a fake back.

Actually, yes I can. Counterfeit or not, it is not their property to seize without the owner's permission.

Nevertheless, I am looking in this thread for reference to legislation that may, or may not, authorise such seizure. So far, no actual, verifiable evidence or verifiable references to evidence have been provided.

Hintza wrote: »

Sending a fake for repair is really dumb.

People might very well not know they have a fake. However, knowing or not knowing is not the point here.

AlAlbert

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Apple confiscate fake items. We had a fake charger bought from a high street shop.

They confiscated it and replaced it....but that was only a charger I guess....

Very interesting. "Only a charger" doesn't make any difference -- the principle is the same.

Can you tell me when and where this happened? Did you object to having your property unilaterally seized or was the provision of a free (I presume it was free?), genuine replacement enough to cause you to not mind?

This is an interesting report but it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not Apple or their franchisee had lawful authority to forcefully seize your property. Of course, providing a free replacement rather neatly sidesteps the issue of legality or lawfulness.

AlAlbert

earthstorm wrote: »

yes if the item is fake and proven to be fake then the intellectual property owner can retain the fake

Thanks for your response but you are in effect only repeating the urban legend here. ;-) The reason I began this thread was to find out what is the legal authority for such seizure. Can you name the legislation (specific sections please) that provide for the authority for the IP owner to do this? If you cannot name the legislation then, in the nicest possible way, I don't believe you. Without references, your statement is just another unsourced claim, of which there are many in this context. It is a field rich in FUD.

You also add a new wrinkle: You say "and proven to be fake". Proven by whom? By what authority? If the IP owner seizes the goods without wanting then there is no verifiable or challengable proof, other than the unilateral say so of the IP owner.

earthstorm wrote: »

they will also inform TS and the police, so you could expect a visit from either TS or the police to find where to got the fake from.

Ah, more urban legend and FUD. It is not illegal in the UK to merely own a counterfeit item. If the police or TS turned up to ask where a member of the public got a fake from (which seems exceptionally unlikely to me), the memberof the public would have nothing to fear. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge at present (unless, as above, you can provide references to the legislation that authorises unilateral seizure by a private entity of private property without permission of the owner) the member of the public would have good reason to ask the police to help secure the return of their property (regardless of the fact that is has been alleged, note not proven, to be counterfeit)!

earthstorm wrote: »

This also applies to repair centers if you send a fake for repair, then must retain this and inform the authorities and the intellectual property owner.

So now it is "must"!? Again, let me ask you: Is this received wisdom you are passing on here (i.e. in effect the very urban legend to which I referred) or actual, verifiable, knowledge derived from the legislation? If the latter, please, please, please can you specify the legislation so that I can verify it. That is the reason I began this thread.

I have replied to a second message of yours below.

earthstorm wrote: »

most large international retailers like Apple/Adidas etc. will have orders in place allowing them to seize goods know to be counterfeit.

Again, you pass on more of the urgan legend. What is your verifiable evidence for this?

earthstorm wrote: »

We sell a line of electronic items in out toy stores, we have a book of how to spot fakes and in this book is a copy of a document allowing us to seize the goods to pass onto TS for them to pass onto the intellectual property owner.

Most interesting. Can you post a copy of this document here?


**edit**
I now see that you have already been challenged to provide the document in question. Whilst I am not a lawyer, it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that courts would give a carte blanche authority to seize any and all goods you deem to be counterfeit on behalf of an IP owner. It's not impossible, of course, just unlikely. It would be great to be able to see a copy of this document.

AlAlbert

bris wrote: »

They don't have to give you it back, but if you insist then they should give you a receipt for it and pass it on to the trading standards or police who will destroy it for them.

They won't hand you it back no matter what you say, so although they can't retain it and smash it up in front of you they can retain it to be passed to the relevant authorities for disposal.

As with my reply to earthstorm, you are simply in effect passing on what is the the same urban legend here. Is what you are saying the result of received wisdom or is it the result of specific knowledge gained from legislation (or some other verifiable, referencable, source material)? If the latter, can you please specify your sources?

AlAlbert

George_Michael wrote: »

Only if they first obtain a court order giving them permission to do this.

No person has the legal right to seize or destroy the possessions of another person without a court order even if those goods are infringing the Trade mark act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/part/I/crossheading/infringement-proceedings
Sections 15 to 19 clearly state what is required before goods can be seized or destroyed

MANY THANKS! This looks like a promising lead. I shall investigate further.