Counterfeit Toys Prosecutions
1. United States v. Gregory R. Policano (2010)
Facts: Gregory Policano was found selling counterfeit action figures and toy collectibles online. These toys bore trademarks of major companies like Hasbro and Mattel but were cheaply made and unsafe.
Charges: Trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, along with consumer product safety violations.
Outcome: Policano was convicted and sentenced to prison. In addition, he was required to forfeit all counterfeit toys and pay restitution to the trademark owners.
Significance: This case highlighted the combination of IP law and product safety law, showing that prosecutors can target both the brand violation and the endangerment of consumers.
2. U.S. Customs v. Li & Chen Enterprises (2013)
Facts: Li & Chen Enterprises imported thousands of counterfeit Disney toys into the U.S., falsely labeled as authentic merchandise. U.S. Customs seized the shipment at the port.
Charges: Trademark counterfeiting, import fraud, and mislabeling.
Outcome: The court ordered destruction of all seized toys. The company faced heavy fines and permanent injunctions preventing future import of counterfeit goods.
Significance: This case reinforced customs enforcement against counterfeit toys, showing how border authorities play a crucial role in protecting children and brands.
3. R v. Toy Market Ltd. (UK, 2015)
Facts: Toy Market Ltd., a retailer in London, sold counterfeit Lego sets and Disney princess dolls. The toys were of poor quality and failed UK safety standards (EN 71).
Charges: Selling counterfeit goods and breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Outcome: The company directors were fined heavily, and the retailer was banned from selling toys for five years.
Significance: This case emphasized safety alongside IP violations, demonstrating that prosecution can target both child safety breaches and trademark infringement.
4. U.S. v. Nhi D. Nguyen (2017)
Facts: Nhi Nguyen sold counterfeit Hello Kitty and Marvel toys online and at flea markets. Investigators found the toys contained toxic levels of lead paint.
Charges: Distribution of counterfeit goods, violations of Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
Outcome: Nguyen received prison time, and authorities recalled all sold toys. The case also imposed civil penalties to the rights holders.
Significance: Highlighted that counterfeit toys with toxic components are treated as criminal offenses, not just civil matters.
5. Mattel, Inc. v. Mega Brands, Inc. (Canada, 2008)
Facts: Mega Brands sold toy blocks very similar to Lego in design and packaging. While not identical, the products were marketed in a way that confused customers.
Charges: Trademark infringement and passing off under Canadian IP law.
Outcome: Court ruled in favor of Mattel. Mega Brands had to change packaging, remove misleading branding, and pay damages.
Significance: Even in cases where the toy is functional but the presentation or branding misleads consumers, courts enforce protection. This case shows prosecution can include civil litigation in addition to criminal charges.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Counterfeit toys endanger children, so prosecution often combines IP law with consumer safety law.
Customs enforcement plays a major role in preventing import of fake toys.
Online and offline sales are both prosecutable—marketplaces are under scrutiny.
Civil remedies (damages, injunctions) often accompany criminal penalties.
Courts consider both branding confusion and physical safety risks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments