A man receives prison sentence and pays damages for selling counterfeit branded watches

A man, surnamed Chen (hereinafter “Chen”), imported counterfeit Burberry watches from China for resale on the Internet and the TV shopping platform of U-Life (Chinese: 森森百貨股份有限公司; hereinafter “U-Life”) and Eastern Home Shopping & Leisure Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 東森得易購股份有限公司; hereinafter “Easter Home Shopping & Leisure”) (U-Life and Eastern Home Shopping & Leisure collectively referred to as the “said two companies”), which came to Burberry Limited’s knowledge and caused Burberry Limited to sue Chen and the said two companies and seek damages payment therefrom.  Taiwan Taipei District Court heard this case and sentenced Chen to one year and ten months in prison and Chen should also pay TWD150 million in damages (700 times of the unit price of the counterfeit watch) for Chen’s counts of seeking another’s property belongings by fraud and Trademark Act violation, and Chen also has to run the civil judgment on local newspapers for one day.  Taipei District Court, however, did not order the said two companies to pay damages on the ground that the said two companies had exercised their due care with respect to the origin of the watches in question. 

According to the Taipei District Court judgment, Chen, as the responsible person of Wealth Full International Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 惟富國際) and other two companies, had been purchasing counterfeit Burberry watches from a Chinese, surnamed Lin, at the price of TWD4,000~7,000 each watch since early 2012 or at the end of 2011, and then imported these watches into Taiwan through mini three links (that allows limited postal, transportation, and trade links between the PRC’s Fujian province and Kinmen and Matsu of Taiwan) or by air express consignment for resale at the price of TWD7,999~TW15,780 each watch at the said two companies’ online websites or TV shopping platforms. 

Chen alleged that those Burberry watches in question he had imported are parallel imported genuine Burberry products and he had once presented these watches to some clock and watch makers for authenticity examination who confirmed them to be genuine, which allegation however was contrary to Burberry Limited’s examination result indicating that the Burberry watches in question were extremely different from the genuine ones in the letter font of “BURBERRY” mark and in craftsmanship. 

To deny Burberry Limited’s examination result, Chen challenged the capability of the appraiser of Burberry Limited, saying that the appraiser took history as his major in college and had taken watch authenticity examination sessions for only three months.  Also, the appraiser has been working for Fossil that has been engaged in OEM manufacturing for many other branded products. 

Chen’s allegation that the Burberry watches in question are genuine was held hardly convincible by Taipei District Court because Chen actually knew nothing about the origin of these Burberry watches in question due to his failure to present any authorization documents issued by Burberry Limited and also his ignorance of the name or location of Burberry’s factories.  Besides, Taipei District Court affirmed the capability of Burberry Limited’s appraiser on the ground that due to his employment at Fossil since October 2011, the appraiser would deal with around 40~50 authenticity examination cases every month and he had once conducted authenticity examination on about 40~45 Burberry watches in China, South Korea, and Japan.  In view of the foregoing findings, Taipei District Court sentenced Chen to imprisonment for one year and ten months and paying a huge amount of damages. 

As to the incidental civil action Burberry Limited initiated against the said two companies for seeking damages payment, Taipei District Court exempted the said two companies from the damages sought on the ground that the said two companies had exercised due care in regard to the product origin and they were unable to know about the Burberry watches in question being counterfeit because these watches were delivered by Chen directly to consumers after sale.  This case is appealable.  (January 2016) 
/CCS