Industrial property: doubts about involvement and evidence

Judgment of acquittal examined; unverified firmness

The situation

A charge was made for the possible marketing of products incorporating signs of marks. The trial required an examination of the assigned participation and the evidence of the effects involved.

What the decision records

The court found reasonable doubt both about identification of the accused and relevant aspects of the evidence concerning the products. It acquitted and made no party-specific costs order.

What this helps explain

The seizure of goods alone does not prove who committed criminal conduct or all elements of the type. The valuation belongs to the specific case and does not convert other forms of marketing into licit.