R v Zaman (Qamar)

Date

1 July 2002

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1994, s92(1)(c)

Keywords

criminal offences; counterfeit goods; intent; with a view to gain

Counsel

G Ford for the appellant, S Walker for the Crown

Solicitors

Unknown

Judge

Longmore LJ, Wright J and HHJ Goddard QC

Court

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported

[2003] FSR 13; [2002] EWCA Crim 1862

Summary

Zaman was convicted of offences under s92(1)(c) Trade Marks Act 1994.

In 1998 Zaman imported 3,585 pairs of jeans from Pakistan. A man called Sami had agreed to buy 1000 pairs from him at £4 a pair. Sami collected the jeans but did not pay ½ of the money he owed to Zaman. Some months later Sami returned 600 pairs of jeans that he had not yet sold together with a quantity of false designer labels and buttons (which had not been supplied by Zaman) as security for the debt. A year later it appeared that Sami had disappeared and Zaman attempted to sell some of the jeans at Aldgate Market. The local trading standards officers then seized all of the jeans, buttons and labels from Zaman’s mother’s house.

Zaman appealed against conviction on the basis that his possession of the goods was not "with a view to gain" as required by s.92, but as security for a debt.

Decision

The court held that:-

• "With a view to" does not mean the same as "with intent to". Although Zaman did not want to sell the jeans but wanted to get his £2000 and give the jeans back to Sami, nevertheless if he did not get his money back he would have to sell the jeans to recoup his losses.
• But even if Zaman did give the goods back to Sami, Sami would sell them, so either way, the probability was that the goods would get sold.
• Thus, whatever happened, Mr. Zaman possessed the goods with a view to gain by himself or another, that is to say, with the real possibility that that he or Sami would sell them.

The appeal was dismissed.

See also R v Johnstone (House of Lords, 2003) on this topic