Counterfeit Goods And Consumer Protection Prosecutions
Introduction
Counterfeit goods are products illegally manufactured or sold under the trademark of another company, often violating intellectual property rights and posing risks to consumer health and safety.
In Finland, counterfeit goods are regulated under:
Finnish Penal Code (Chapter 50, Intellectual Property Offenses) – criminalizes counterfeiting and infringement of trademarks.
Consumer Protection Act – prohibits misleading advertising, false labeling, and sale of unsafe goods.
Customs Act – regulates importation of counterfeit goods.
European Union laws, including EU Customs Regulation 608/2013 – allow border seizure of infringing goods.
Enforcement involves police, customs, and market supervision authorities, often in coordination with brand owners.
Challenges in Enforcement
Online marketplaces – counterfeit goods sold via e-commerce platforms and social media.
Cross-border trafficking – counterfeit goods imported from other EU countries or Asia.
Consumer deception – products may endanger health (e.g., fake electronics or cosmetics).
Legal complexity – distinguishing between infringement and legitimate resale, or proving intent to deceive.
Detailed Cases
Case 1: Fake Electronics Imported via Helsinki Airport (2015)
Facts:
Finnish Customs seized thousands of counterfeit mobile phones and chargers imported from Asia.
The products bore fake brand logos and were sold online in Finland.
Legal Issues:
Violation of trademark laws and consumer safety regulations.
Potential criminal liability for the importer under Finnish Penal Code §50.
Outcome:
Importer received a fine and partial confiscation of goods.
Some higher-value items led to prosecution and conditional imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlights customs enforcement as the first line of defense.
Shows coordination between customs and police investigations for criminal prosecution.
Case 2: Counterfeit Clothing Sold Online (2016)
Facts:
A Helsinki-based individual sold counterfeit branded clothing on Facebook and e-commerce sites.
Buyers were misled by logos and packaging resembling genuine brands.
Legal Issues:
Violates trademark law and consumer protection statutes.
Intent to deceive buyers is a key factor for criminal liability.
Outcome:
Court sentenced the offender to fines and community service.
E-commerce platform assisted in removing listings.
Significance:
Demonstrates enforcement in digital marketplaces.
Emphasizes brand owner cooperation in identifying counterfeits.
Case 3: Fake Cosmetics Distributed in Retail Stores (2017)
Facts:
Counterfeit cosmetics were sold in small retail shops in Turku.
Products contained harmful chemicals exceeding legal limits.
Legal Issues:
Consumer safety violation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Criminal liability for the retailer distributing unsafe products.
Outcome:
Retailer fined heavily and required to recall all products.
Health authorities issued warnings to consumers.
Significance:
Shows how counterfeit goods can pose direct health risks.
Enforcement combines consumer protection law with criminal prosecution.
Case 4: Counterfeit Sportswear Trafficking (2018)
Facts:
Police uncovered a criminal network importing fake sportswear (shoes and jackets) from abroad.
Goods were sold in Finland and online.
Legal Issues:
Large-scale counterfeiting, involving intent to profit.
Criminal charges under Finnish Penal Code for trademark infringement and organized crime involvement.
Outcome:
Leaders sentenced to 2–4 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of all merchandise and seizure of profits.
Significance:
Illustrates prosecution of organized counterfeit networks.
Highlights financial penalties and imprisonment as deterrence.
Case 5: Fake Electronics and Safety Violations (2019)
Facts:
Counterfeit electrical goods, including chargers and adapters, sold online in Finland.
Products posed fire hazards due to non-compliance with EU safety standards.
Legal Issues:
Violated consumer safety laws and product liability regulations.
Criminal liability for intentional sale of unsafe counterfeit goods.
Outcome:
Court imposed fines and ordered recall of all dangerous products.
Some offenders faced short-term imprisonment for aggravated consumer endangerment.
Significance:
Shows intersection of consumer protection and criminal enforcement.
Highlights public safety as a key consideration.
Case 6: Counterfeit Luxury Watches Seized in Helsinki Harbor (2020)
Facts:
Customs seized a shipment of over 500 counterfeit luxury watches from Asia.
Watches were intended for online sale in Finland.
Legal Issues:
Trademark infringement and intent to distribute to consumers.
Determining value of goods for penalty calculation.
Outcome:
Importer fined and shipment destroyed.
Brand owners assisted in verification and tracking.
Significance:
Demonstrates customs’ role in border control.
Shows cooperation between authorities and brand owners in enforcement.
Case 7: Counterfeit Medications and Consumer Risk (2021)
Facts:
Finnish authorities discovered counterfeit pharmaceutical products being sold online.
Products had fake labels, improper dosage instructions, and were potentially life-threatening.
Legal Issues:
Violated trademark law, medical product regulations, and consumer protection laws.
Severe public health risk required urgent action.
Outcome:
Offenders sentenced to 3–5 years imprisonment.
Authorities issued consumer alerts and recalls.
Significance:
Highlights high-risk counterfeit goods and need for rapid enforcement.
Illustrates coordination between customs, police, health authorities, and prosecutors.
Key Lessons from Finnish Enforcement
Customs as First Line of Defense
Seizures at ports and airports are crucial for intercepting counterfeit goods.
Consumer Safety as Priority
Cases involving electronics, cosmetics, and medications often trigger stricter penalties.
Digital Marketplaces
Online sales require cooperation with platforms and often precede prosecution.
Organized Networks vs. Individual Sellers
Organized networks face imprisonment and asset forfeiture, while individual small sellers usually face fines.
Brand Owner Cooperation
Finnish enforcement often relies on reports and verification from intellectual property rights holders.
Conclusion
Counterfeit goods enforcement in Finland is a combination of:
Criminal prosecution (trademark infringement, consumer endangerment)
Administrative enforcement (recalls, product seizures)
Cross-border customs control
Consumer protection measures
Key takeaway from the cases:
Cases 1, 6, and 7 highlight cross-border import and public safety risks.
Cases 2, 3, 4, and 5 emphasize digital marketplaces, retail sales, and organized trafficking.
Finnish authorities balance brand protection, consumer safety, and criminal deterrence.
RELATED Blog
comments