Trademark Attorney New York City Trademark Sentencing Outcome

The defendant operated an internet based storefront that marketed apparel resembling internationally recognized designer brands. Investigators determined that several items bore marks substantially indistinguishable from federally registered trademarks. Under New York Penal Law § 165.71 and § 165.72, trademark counterfeiting occurs when a person knowingly manufactures, distributes, or sells goods bearing a counterfeit mark.

Law enforcement executed a search warrant and seized inventory, digital sales records, and payment documentation. The retail value of the seized goods elevated the charge to a felony level. The prosecution also considered potential violations involving scheme to defraud under Penal Law § 190.65.

New York Penal Law § 165.71 defines trademark counterfeiting in the third degree as knowingly manufacturing or selling goods bearing a counterfeit mark. The offense escalates to higher degrees under § 165.72 and § 165.73 based on aggregate retail value.

To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove knowledge, intent to sell or distribute, and the existence of a counterfeit mark as defined by statute. A counterfeit mark must be identical with or substantially indistinguishable from a registered mark. Sentencing exposure may include incarceration, probation, fines, and restitution.

New York courts apply structured sentencing under Penal Law Article 70. A defendant with a prior conviction may face enhanced exposure depending on classification and predicate status.

However, courts also weigh mitigating factors such as acceptance of responsibility, cooperation, restitution efforts, and cessation of illegal conduct. Judicial discretion permits probation in certain non violent felony cases when mitigation is substantial and community safety is not compromised.

Defense counsel conducted a comprehensive review of the search warrant affidavit and inventory valuation. The strategy evaluated whether the retail value calculation complied with statutory definitions.

Counsel also assessed whether the defendant possessed actual knowledge that the goods were counterfeit within the meaning of Penal Law § 165.71. While the evidence presented significant challenges, early acknowledgment of responsibility positioned the case toward mitigation rather than trial.

The defendant voluntarily ceased all online sales activity. The business entity was dissolved, and all remaining inventory was surrendered.

Counsel documented financial hardship stemming from prior business failure and demonstrated that the conduct was financially motivated rather than part of a broader organized counterfeit scheme. Efforts to negotiate restitution and to show willingness to compensate affected trademark holders were presented to the court as mitigating evidence.

The court acknowledged that trademark counterfeiting undermines consumer trust and brand integrity. However, the court also recognized the defendant’s cooperation, lack of violent history, and demonstrated remorse.

The sentence included probation supervision, monetary penalties, and compliance conditions prohibiting future involvement in counterfeit goods. The outcome avoided jail time while maintaining accountability.

Individuals facing allegations under New York Penal Law §§ 165.71 through 165.73 should seek counsel immediately. Early strategic decisions can influence charging determinations and sentencing exposure.

Defendants should avoid providing statements without legal guidance. Preservation of financial documentation and immediate cessation of alleged conduct may affect mitigation. Civil exposure for trademark infringement under federal law may proceed separately from criminal prosecution.