Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantliabilitystatutetrialverdictmotiontrademarkprosecutorbeyond a reasonable doubtcriminal proceduregrand jurypiracy
defendantliabilitytrialverdictmotionprosecutorcriminal procedure

Related Cases

Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1883, 43 Media L. Rep. 1397, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1725, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2001
View Case »
Bertolli USA, Inc. v. Filippo Bertolli Fine Foods, Ltd., 662 F.Supp. 203, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1043
View Case »
Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4792683, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039
View Case »
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280
View Case »
Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 2000 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,087, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865, 28 Media L. Rep. 1961, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 689
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Chong Lam, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 5178839

Facts

Defendants Chong Lam and Siu Yung Chan, owners of several companies, were involved in importing counterfeit luxury goods into the United States. Between 2002 and 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized numerous containers of counterfeit handbags and wallets from various ports. A federal grand jury indicted them on multiple counts, including conspiracy and trafficking in counterfeit goods. After a trial, Lam and Chan were convicted of conspiracy and trafficking in counterfeit goods, specifically related to Burberry's registered trademarks.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for counterfeiting and whether the defendants were entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for counterfeiting and whether the defendants were entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Rule

Under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29(c), a defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. The standard for granting such a motion is whether substantial evidence exists that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would allow a rational jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Rule 33 allows for a new trial if the interest of justice requires it, particularly if prosecutorial misconduct affected the trial's fairness.

A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later. Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c)(1). If the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court can 'set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal.' Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c)(2).

Analysis

The court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to convict Lam and Chan, as the differences between their Marco Mark and Burberry's Check Mark were not substantial enough to escape liability under the trademark counterfeiting statute. The court also noted that the jury's determination of whether the marks were substantially indistinguishable was appropriate and supported by the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that while the government made errors in its legal standards during closing arguments, these did not rise to the level of requiring a new trial, as the jury was ultimately instructed to compare the marks side-by-side.

The Court agrees with the Government. Defendants' argument that the marks on their handbags and wallets are legally distinguishable from the marks on Burberry's merchandise because they have a slightly different color and shape is unavailing. It simply cannot be that a defendant may modify a registered mark in trivial ways and escape liability because the counterfeit is not identical to the registered mark.

Conclusion

The court denied the defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, affirming the jury's verdict based on the evidence presented.

Defendants' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is denied.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in this case, as the court upheld the jury's verdict against Lam and Chan. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and trafficking in counterfeit goods. The court determined that the differences cited by the defendants between their mark and Burberry's were not legally significant enough to warrant a judgment of acquittal. Additionally, while the government made errors in its arguments regarding the standard for determining substantial indistinguishability, these errors did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial.

The United States prevailed in this case, as the court upheld the jury's verdict against Lam and Chan.

You must be