R v Ansari (Mohammed), R. v Ansari (Sayed), R. v Horner (David), R. v Ling (Peter)

Date

19 July 1993

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 ss1(1)(b), 20

Keywords

trade descriptions offences; custody threashold; repackaging goods; remanufacturing

Counsel

Hirst LJ, Ian Kennedy J

Solicitors

Unknown

Judge

Hirst LJ, Ian Kennedy J

Court

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported

(1994) 15 Cr App R (S) 254

Summary

Ahmadi pleaded guilty to one offence of supplying goods with a false trade description contrary to s1(1)(b) and s20 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and appealed against his sentence by leave of the single judge. His company, who was the co-accused, was ordered to pay a fine of £900.

In around 1991 Ahmadi supplied photocopier toner cartridges which he packaged up and marked with the indicium Hewlett Packard. Ahmadi was asked by Computerland Limited to supply 3,000 remanufactured toner cartridges to them. Ahmadi ordered boxes with the Hewlett Packard logo that were identical to the ones in which Hewlett Packard supplied new cartridges in. An end-user of the cartridges rejected one on the basis that it was not genuine and upon searching trading standards officers found several hundred flat-packed boxes marked with the Hewlett Packard logo.

Ahmadi argued on appeal that the judge sentenced on an erroneous basis, namely by treating him as instigator when in fact that was Computerland, and by treating him as being dishonest from the start when in fact he only became dishonest at the time when the packing boxes with the Hewlett Packard logo had been ordered.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that it was quite clear on the evidence that Computerland were involved in illegal passing off activities prior to Ahmadi's involvement with them, but rejected the submission that Ahmadi was honest from the start as he must have realised what was going on. It was also held that once counterfeit goods find their way onto the open market (i.e. purchasers down the line from Computerland) then those customers suffer great loss. Held that the sentence imposed was a just sentence and the appeal was dismissed.