|
|
      
 Recent Prosecutions and Penalty and CostsCabinet's approval was sought for a policy
to publicise the outcomes of legal action on the Council website for
implementation by all Departments of the Council. The Environment and
Transportation Select Committee on 6 April, 2006 supported the
recommendation. Cabinet resolved on 25th April 2006 - That the outcome of prosecutions and other legal action taken by the Council be placed on the Council website and included in the Council's Publication Scheme. For more information see http://10.107.1.50/minute/Public/ENVreg060328rep1_19799.doc Enforcement action is guided by reference to the published Enforcement Policy Prosecutions
NAME OF DEFENDANT: DAVID OSWALD
PLEA: GUILTY
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT: DATE OF HEARING: 19th September 2007
LEGISLATION:TRADE MARKS ACT 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 4TH JULY 2007
OFFENCE(S):
On 4th July 2007 at Grange Road in Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, offered or
exposed for sale goods, namely 18 compact music discs, bearing, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, contrary to
section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On 4th July 2007 at Grange Road in Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, offered or
exposed for sale goods, namely 161 DVD discs, bearing, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, contrary to section 92(1)(b)
of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
PENALTY: 200 hours community service – forfeiture of 18 music CDs, 161 DVDs
COSTS: £100
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 18th SEPTEMBER 2008
NAME OF DEFENDANT: WALLASEY CAR SUPERSTORE LTD
PLEA: GUILTY
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT: DATE OF HEARING: 18th October 2007
LEGISLATION: TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 8th June 2006
OFFENCE(S):
On 8th June 2006, at 77-81 Seaview Road, Wallasey, did, in the course of trade or business as a car dealer, supply goods, namely a Ford Focus motor vehicle registration mark X919 KFR
to which a description was applied namely 53,000 miles by means of the reading on the odometer, which was false in that the vehicle had travelled in excess of 90,000 miles. Contrary to
Section 1 (1) (b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
PENALTY: FINE: £1000 fine
COSTS: £1500
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 17th OCTOBER 2008
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 29th November 2007
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 12th December 2006
OFFENCE(S):
1. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit NC/J/Nike/sample1), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Nike’
2. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit PT/Hayes/01), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Hugo Boss’
3. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit HB/Jeti/1), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Timberland’
RESULT/PENALTY: 2 X £150 summonses 1 &2, no separate penalty for summons 3.
COSTS: £100 FORFEITURE OF 42 ITEMS:
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 28th NOVEMBER 2008
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 08/01/08
LEGISLATION: Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 12th March 2007
OFFENCE(S):
On 12th March 2007, at Kuki’s Mediterranean Restaurant, 119/121 Banks Road, West Kirby, Crossfire Services Ltd did in the course of a trade or business, as a restaurant, applied to goods, namely a bottle of Smirnoff Vodka, a false trade description, namely a statement in writing on the label of the bottle which contained the said spirit when the said spirit was not Smirnoff. Contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and by virtue of section 23 of the said Act it is alleged that the commision of the said offence was due to the act or default of Kieron Izquierdo
FINE: £75
COSTS: £50
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 7th JANUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 08/01/08
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 1st and 12th December 2006
1. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit PT/AHMAD/07), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Armani Jeans’
2. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a jacket (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/2), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Prada’
3. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit PT/AHMAD/03), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Juicy Couture’
4. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/14), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Timberland’
5. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/4), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Avirex’
6. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a jacket (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/11), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Henri Lloyd’
7. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a T-shirt (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/6), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Lacoste’
8. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a T-shirt (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/8), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Versace’
9. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a T-shirt (Exhibit PT/AHMAD/04), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Hugo Boss’
10. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely four T-shirts (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/10), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Dolce & Gabbana’
11. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely three tracksuits and three knitted cardigans (Exhibit HB/AHMAD/23), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Fred Perry’ & ‘Laurel Wreath’
12. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely one tracksuits (Exhibit NC/AHMAD/sample1), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Nike’
13. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely one tracksuit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Nike’
14. On 12th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely one jacket (Exhibit HB/Ahmad/13), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Timberland’
FINE: Conditional discharge for 2 years
COSTS: £175
251 counterfeit items forfeit
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 7th JANUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: GUILTY
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 28TH JANUARY 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Descriptions Act 1968, General Product Safety Regulations 2005
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): Between the 12th January and 21st February 2007
OFFENCE(S):
1 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on 12th of January 2007, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, apply to goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC, a false trade description namely “service history”, by means of an internet advertisement, an indication that the vehicle was to be supplied with a service history which was false in that no service history was supplied, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
2 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 12th of January 2007, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, apply to goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC a false trade description namely “CD Player”, by means of an internet advertisement which was false in that a CD player was not supplied with the vehicle, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
3 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which a false trade description has been applied namely “service history” by means of an internet advertisement an indication that the vehicle was to be supplied with a service history which was false in that no service history was supplied, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
4 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which a false trade description has been applied namely “CD Player”, by means of an internet advertisement, which was false in that a CD player was not supplied with the vehicle, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
5 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the condition of the tyres contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972.
6 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the offside rear wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Michelin XSE Pilot Primacy Tubeless Radial with a load index of 93 which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle was being put contrary to Regulation 27(1)(a) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
7 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the offside front wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Dunlop SP Sport 2020E Tubeless Radial Reinforced which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the under lying cord fabric being exposed contrary to Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 . and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
8 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the near side front wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Dunlop SP Sport 2020E Tubeless Radial Reinforced which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the under lying cord fabric being exposed contrary to Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 . and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
9 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a repaired part-worn tyre,namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial, the said tyre repair not meeting the requirements of BS AU 159f 1997 contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
10 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a part-worn tyre, namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial which being part-worn, did not bear the part worn tyre identification marking immediately adjacent to every approval mark borne by the tyre contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
11 That you Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a part-worn tyre, namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial which being part-worn, did not bear the part worn tyre identification marking immediately adjacent to every approval mark borne by the tyre contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
12 On a date between the 6th of February and 21st February 2007 did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the load index of the tyre contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972
13 On a date between the 6th of February and 21st February 2007 did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the load index of the tyre contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972
RESULT/PENALTY: 2 weeks imprisonment for for 6,7,9 and no separate penalty for other offences, 6 weeks suspended sentence imposed, 1 week for non payment of fines.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 27th JANUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: GUILTY
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 28th January 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Descriptions Act 1968, General Product Safety Regulations 2005
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): Between the 12th January and 21st February 2007
OFFENCE(S):
1 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on 12th of January 2007, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, apply to goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC, a false trade description namely “service history”, by means of an internet advertisement, an indication that the vehicle was to be supplied with a service history which was false in that no service history was supplied, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
2 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 12th of January 2007, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, apply to goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC a false trade description namely “CD Player”, by means of an internet advertisement which was false in that a CD player was not supplied with the vehicle, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
3 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which a false trade description has been applied namely “service history” by means of an internet advertisement an indication that the vehicle was to be supplied with a service history which was false in that no service history was supplied, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
4 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply goods namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which a false trade description has been applied namely “CD Player”, by means of an internet advertisement, which was false in that a CD player was not supplied with the vehicle, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
5 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the condition of the tyres contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 .
6 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the offside rear wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Michelin XSE Pilot Primacy Tubeless Radial with a load index of 93 which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle was being put contrary to Regulation 27(1)(a) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 .
7 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the offside front wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Dunlop SP Sport 2020E Tubeless Radial Reinforced which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the under lying cord fabric being exposed contrary to Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 . and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
8 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on the 2nd of February 2007 at 57 Duke Street, Birkenhead, did supply a wheeled motor vehicle namely a Ford Galaxy registration number Y672 WOC to which was fitted to the near side front wheel a pneumatic tyre namely a Dunlop SP Sport 2020E Tubeless Radial Reinforced which was unsuitable for use on the road having regard to the under lying cord fabric being exposed contrary to Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 . and section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.
9 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a repaired part-worn tyre, namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial, the said tyre repair not meeting the requirements of BS AU 159f 1997 contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
10 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a part-worn pneumatic tyre, namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial which being part-worn, did not bear the part worn tyre identification marking immediately adjacent to every approval mark borne by the tyre contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
11 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre on a date between the 6th February and 21st February 2007, did supply a part-worn pneumatic tyre, namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 Tubeless Radial which being part-worn, did not bear the part worn tyre identification marking immediately adjacent to every approval mark borne by the tyre contrary to regulation 7 of the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Motor Vehicle Tyres (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
12 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre On a date between the 6th of February and 21st February 2007 did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the load index of the tyre contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
13 That you did, aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Shane Dooley trading as Northside Auto Centre On a date between the 6th of February and 21st February 2007 did in the course of a trade or business as a motor vehicle supplier, supply a product namely a Bridgestone Turanza ER30 which you knew or should have presumed, on the basis of the information in your possession and as a professional to know is a dangerous product and did not pass on information on the risks posed by the product namely the load index of the tyre contrary to section 8(1)(b) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the European Communities Act 1972 and section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
RESULT/PENALTY: 200 hours unpaid work
COSTS: £1335
COMPENSATION: £352
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 27th JANUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 7th February 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 9/8/2006, 1/12/2006, 5/12/2006
OFFENCE(S):
1. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a tracksuit (Exhibit HB/Galaxy/16), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Fred Perry’
2. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely tracksuit bottoms (Exhibit PT/SINGLA/01), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Hugo Boss’
3. On 1st December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely six fleece tracksuits (Exhibit NC/G/Bag1), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Air Max’
4. On 5th December 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a tracksuit hoodie top (Exhibit DH1), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely ‘Timberland’
Contrary to Section 92 (1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
5. On 9th August 2006 at Birkenhead, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a t-shirt (Exhibit HB2), bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely Armani.
Four summonses withdrawn
RESULT/PENALTY: 3 months custody per offence to run concurrent suspended for 2 years, plus 100 hours community order,
COSTS: Costs of £2654 and Forfeiture and Destruction of the 297 counterfeit items.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 6th FEBRUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 19th February 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 15/10/07, 19/11/07
OFFENCE(S):
1 On 19/11/2007 at Europa Boulevard Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of business, goods, namely 9 packets of cigarettes, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark with a view to you or another selling the said goods, Contrary to section 92(1) (c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
2 On 15/10/2007 at Wellington Hotel, Seaview Road, Liscard, Wirral CH45 with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of business, goods, namely 8 packets of tobacco, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark with a view to you or another selling the said goods., Contrary to section 92 (1) (c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
3 On 15/10/2007 at Wellington Hotel, Seaview Road, Liscard, Wirral CH45 with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of business, goods, namely 25 packets of tobacco, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark with a view to you or another selling the said goods.,Contrary to section 92 (1) (c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
RESULT/PENALTY: 12 month community order with supervision together with an Alcohol and Substance Rehabilitation Order
COSTS: £200
Forfeiture of 42 counterfeit items
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 18th FEBRUARY 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: MOLD CROWN COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 6th March 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 1st January 2005 to 15th October 2006
OFFENCE(S):
On the 9th day of July 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a Playstation 2 game entitled ‘Flatout 2’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 9th day of July 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a Playstation 2 game entitled ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 20th day of August 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a DVD entitled ‘Snakes on a Plane’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 11th day of July 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a DVD entitled ‘X Men’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 11th day of July 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a DVD entitled ‘Click’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 22nd day of September 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a DVD entitled ‘RV’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken
for, a registered trade mark namely Sony (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 22nd day of September 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods namely a DVD entitled ‘Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Man’s Chest’, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark namely Disney (contrary to Section 92 (1) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 15th day of October 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business with a view to selling, a DVD entitled ‘Madagascar’, which bore or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark namely Dreamworks Word (contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 15th day of October 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business with a view to selling, a music DVD-R entitled ‘The Sound of Music’, which bore or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark namely RCA (contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 15th day of October 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business with a view to selling, a software game entitled ‘Medal of Honour European Assault’, which bore or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark namely Sony (contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On the 15th day of October 2006, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in his possession, articles, namely computers, specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, knowing or having reason to believe that they have been, or were to be used to produce goods or material for labeling or packaging goods (contrary to Section 92 (3) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
Between 1st January 2005 and 16th Day of October 2006, without the licence of the copyright owner did make for sale or hire articles, namely 424 software game discs, which were, and which he knew or had reason to believe were an infringing copy of a copyright work (contrary to Section 107 (1) (a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Between 1st January 2005 and 16th Day of October 2006, without the licence of the copyright owner did make for sale or hire articles, namely 551 film DVD discs, which were, and which he knew or had reason to believe were an infringing copy of a copyright work (contrary to Section 107 (1) (a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Between 1st July 2005 and 16th Day of October 2006, without the licence of the copyright owner did make for sale or hire articles, namely 180 music discs, which were, and which he knew or had reason to believe were an infringing copy of a copyright work (contrary to Section 107 (1) (a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
RESULT/PENALTY
4 years imprisonment reduced to 32 months imprisonment for early guilty plea.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 5th MARCH 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC. PLEA: Guilty
COURT: MOLD CROWN COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 6th March 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988,p>
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 1st January 2005 – 15th October 2006
OFFENCE(S):
On the 11th day of June 2006 at Greenfield Market, Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled ‘The Poseidon’, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to section 92 (1) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 11th day of June 2006 at Greenfield Market, Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled ‘The Poseidon’, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to section 92 (1) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 18th day of June 2006 at Greenfield Market, Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled ‘The Worlds Fastest Indian’, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to section 92 (1) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 18th day of August 2006 at Greenfield Market, Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled ‘The Kooks – Inside Out’, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to section 92 (1) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 8th day of October 2006 at Greenfield Market, Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled ‘The Glasshouse’, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark (contrary to section 92 (1) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 15th day of October 2006 at 17 Stoneridge Court, Prenton, Merseyside, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control, in the course of business, articles, namely two computers, specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, knowing or having reason to believe that it had been, or was to be, used (contrary to section 92 (3) (b) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 15th day of October 2006 at 17 Stoneridge Court, Prenton, Merseyside, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control, in the course of business, articles, namely a music DVD-R entitled ‘October 06 Top 40 Albums’, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark with a view to you or another (contrary to section 92 (1) (c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On the 15th day of October 2006 at 17 Stoneridge Court, Prenton, Merseyside, with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control, in the course of business, articles, namely a DVD entitled ‘Gridiron Gang’, which bore, or the packaging of which bore, a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark with a view to you or another (contrary to section 92 (1) (c) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
On a date between the 1st January 2005 and the 16th October 2006 at 17 Stoneridge Court, Prenton, Merseyside, without the licence of the copyright owner, made for sale or hire an article, namely 52 music MP3 discs, which was and which you knew or had reason to believe was an infringing copy of a copyright work. (contrary to section 107 (1) (a) and (4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
On a date between the 1st January 2005 and the 16th October 2006 at 17 Stoneridge Court, Prenton, Merseyside, without the licence of the copyright owner, made for sale or hire an article, namely 1,770 film DVD’s, which was and which you knew or had reason to believe was an infringing copy of a copyright work. (contrary to section 107 (1) (a) and (4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
RESULT/PENALTY: 8 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and 150 hours unpaid work within 18 months.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 5th MARCH 2009
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY: WIRRAL MBC.
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 11th March 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): April – June 2007
OFFENCE(S):
On 24th April 2007 at ROMFORD with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled THE QUEEN, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely PATHE DISTRIBUTION., Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On 24th April 2007 at ROMFORD with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a DVD entitled HAPPY FEET, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely WARNER BROTHERS., Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
On 22nd June 2007 at Wirral with a view to gain for yourself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business, goods namely, 10 IPOD SHUFFLE MP3 PLAYERS, bearing, or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely APPLE., Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
RESULT/PENALTY: 250 hours unpaid work to be completed in 12 months.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 10th MARCH 2009
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 26TH JUNE 2008
LEGISLATION: Trade Marks Act 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 19TH SEPTEMBER 2007
OFFENCE(S):
1. On 19 September 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely an “Into The Sun” DVD, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Columbia Tri Star”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
2. On 19 September 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a “Monster” DVD, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “New Line Home Entertainment”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
3. On 19 September 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely “The Italian Job” DVD, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “The Italian Job”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
4. On 19 September 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely a “L4yer Cake” DVD, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Columbia Pictures”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
5. On 19 September 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, sold goods, namely an “Into The Sun” DVD, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Columbia Tri Star”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
6. On 10 October 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely “The Fast & The Furious Tokyo Drift” DVD bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Universal Pictures”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
7. On 10 October 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a “Casino Royale” DVD bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Columbia”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
8. On 10 October 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a“Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire” DVD bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “Warner Brothers Shield”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
9. On 10 October 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely a “The Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer” DVD bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely “20th Century Fox”. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
10. On 10 October 2007 at Birkenhead Flea Market, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely 24 DVD’s, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for registered trade marks. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
11. On 10 October 2007 at Tranmere, Wirral, with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods, namely 43 DVD’s, bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for registered trade marks. Contrary to Section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
RESULT/PENALTY: 100 hours unpaid work and to undertake “Think first” programme within 12 months. £150 prosecution costs.
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 25th June 2009
PLEA: Guilty
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 3RD JULY 2008
LEGISLATION: CHILDREN & YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933, AS AMENDED
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 14TH FEBRUARY 2008
OFFENCE(S):
On 14 February 2008 did sell at Heswall, Wirral to a child under the age of 18 years, namely 13 years, a packet of 10 Lambert & Butler Cigarettes, contrary to Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by Section 1 of the Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 and Section 2 of the Children and Young Persons (Sale of Tobacco etc) order 2007
RESULT/PENALTY: Guilty plea
FINE: £300
COSTS: £250 Victim surcharge £15
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 2nd JULY 2009
PLEA: GUILTY
COURT: BIRKENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT:
DATE OF HEARING: 14th August 2008
LEGISLATION:TRADE MARKS ACT 1994
DATE OF OFFENCE(S): 6TH DECEMBER 2007
OFFENCE(S):
1 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely a track suit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely Hugo Boss.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
2 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely a track suit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely Air Max.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
3 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely a track suit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely Moschino.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
4 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely a track suit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely Bench.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
5 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely a track suit bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, namely North Face.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
6 On 6 December 2007 at Birkenhead with a view to gain for yourself or another or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the proprietor, had in your possession, custody or control in the course of a business goods namely 131 items of counterfeit clothing bearing or the packaging of which bore a sign identical or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark.
Contrary to Section 92 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
RESULT/PENALTY: £80 fine
COSTS: £1726 and £15 Victim Surcharge
Forfeiture of 131 counterfeit goods
INFORMATION TO BE REMOVED BY 13TH September 2009
Trading Standards Division, 3rd Floor, Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral CH44 8ED |
