An accusation of counterfeiting can involve whoever manufactures a product, but also whoever imports it, stores it in a warehouse, offers it online, or puts it on sale. For a business operating in Milan, the allegation may arise from an inspection, a report by a trademark owner, or the seizure of goods and documents. It is understandable to wonder whether the product is truly fake, whether the supplier's invoices are sufficient, and what weight the specific role played and the information available at the time of purchase carry.
I want to help you distinguish between criminally relevant counterfeiting and a dispute that remains at a commercial or civil level. I will explain which conducts may be contested, why a graphic similarity does not resolve the issue on its own, and what changes when products, devices, or company data are subjected to seizure.
Conducts Contested in Trademark Crimes
Counterfeiting a sign and commercializing the product are distinct conducts. Article 473 of the Italian Criminal Code concerns, in summary, the counterfeiting or alteration of trademarks and other distinctive signs, as well as the use of counterfeit or altered signs under the conditions provided by the rule. Article 474 instead concerns the introduction into the State territory and the commercial circulation of products bearing counterfeit or altered signs. The text of the Italian Criminal Code in the Official Gazette collection allows for the identification of the placement of these provisions.
The role attributed to the investigated person must be defined with precision. Whoever prints labels, orders a batch, manages a warehouse, publishes listings, and limits themselves to transport do not necessarily occupy the same position. The material availability of the goods is an important fact, but it does not replace the verification of who decided on the purchases, sales, commercial communication, or use of the contested sign.
The presence of a suspicious item does not close the reasoning. The prosecution must indicate which conduct is attributed, which products are involved, which sign is considered counterfeit or altered, and which elements connect that conduct to the individual concerned. A useful criminal defense therefore does not confuse the origin of the goods, the potential trademark dispute, and the personal responsibility of those operating within the business.
When a Similar Trademark is Not Automatically a Fake Trademark
A similarity alone does not equate to criminal counterfeiting. The comparison must concern the sign actually applied to the product, label, packaging, or advertisement. An evocative name, a color close to that of a competitor, or graphics reminiscent of a well-known brand may raise an issue, but they do not automatically prove that a protected sign has been reproduced or altered.
Trademark rights must be identified concretely. It is necessary to distinguish the right holder, the protected sign, the products or services for which it is registered, and the possible existence of a license or distribution authorization. The Industrial Property Code governs trademarks and other industrial property rights; the current text can be consulted in the Industrial Property Code on Normattiva.
Original and freely resalable are not overlapping expressions. An item may be authentic and, at the same time, sold in violation of commercial agreements or contractual limits. This possibility does not automatically transform the act into a crime relating to products with false signs. Conversely, an unusually low price or a sale outside normal channels may be factors to evaluate, but they do not replace the verification of the product's authenticity and the contested conduct.
The awareness required by the provision matters, especially for those operating in the commercial phase. Generic invoices, unidentifiable suppliers, payments lacking a connection to the order, clearly inconsistent packaging, or contradictory information may assume relevance alongside other facts. However, consistent documents predating the inspection, verifiable authorizations, and a traceable supply chain can also clarify what was actually known and what role was assumed.
Evidentiary Seizure of Goods, Documents, and Data
Evidentiary seizure serves the investigations and does not constitute a declaration of guilt. Article 253 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the judicial authority orders with a reasoned decree the seizure of the corpus delicti and of the things pertinent to the crime necessary to ascertain the facts. The same norm defines the corpus delicti and provides for the delivery of a copy of the decree to the interested party who is present; the reference is Article 253 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on Normattiva.
Not only products are seized. Labels, packaging, samples, catalogs, photographs, messages related to orders, transport documents, invoices, sales data, and electronic devices can assume relevance. The point is not the economic value of the asset in itself, but the relationship that the measure indicates between that asset and the fact subject to ascertainment.
The nature of the act must be clear. An evidentiary seizure aims to collect or preserve elements useful for the investigation; other measures that affect assets or economic availability have different presuppositions and purposes. For this reason, the decree, the report of operations, and the list of assets require a unitary reading: they allow us to understand what was acquired, what connection is proposed, and whether individual assets truly belong to the contested batch.
Preserving existing data is prudent. Following an inspection, it is not useful to impulsively delete announcements, messages, files, photographs, or documents. Documentation in its original form can serve to distinguish the involved products from unrelated ones, to reconstruct the supply chain, and to clarify the role of the various subjects. Reconstructions created only after the seizure, instead, can make it more difficult to understand what actually happened.
The Commercial Supply Chain and Facts That Change the Defense
The invoice is an element, not an automatic answer. To be useful, it must allow for the identification of the transferor, the type of product, the quantities, the date, and the connection to the found batch. Its significance increases when it coincides with the order, payment, transport document, inventory, and communications with the supplier. If it only describes generic goods or cannot be linked to the seized products, it does not prove the concrete origin of the articles on its own.
An authorization must come from whoever can grant it. Licenses, distribution contracts, authorizations to use logos, and commercial documents must be read for what they establish: products, territory, duration, sales channels, and limits. The fact that a seller presents themselves as a wholesaler or distributor does not prove, by itself, that they have the power to authorize the reproduction or commercialization of the sign.
The methods of sale can clarify the role. Online listings, photographs, descriptions, indications of authenticity, prices, messages with buyers, and delivery management can help reconstruct whether the business directly presented the goods as original and who managed the offer. Positions in the warehouse can also differ: whoever holds the keys, whoever updates the inventory, and whoever decides reorders might not coincide.
Chronology avoids indistinct conclusions. The date of purchase, arrival of the goods, publication of the listing, any disputes received, and the date of seizure can modify the meaning of the documents. When multiple batches exist, it is incorrect to treat them automatically as a single set. A batch with documented origin and one lacking verification pose different problems, both in the reconstruction of the fact and in the evaluation of the fate of the assets.
How to Navigate After an Inspection or Allegation
The first point is to understand which act was received. A search report, a seizure decree, a notice of investigation, and a summons have different functions. The provisional allegation, the indication of the crimes, and the description of the goods make it possible to identify whether the immediate need concerns participation in an act, the protection of evidence, the restriction on products, or the reconstruction of one's personal position.
Denying in a generic manner does not replace facts. The defensive line may concern the absence of a counterfeit sign, the irrelevance of a part of the goods, the different function performed in the supply chain, or the lack of elements connecting a person to the contested conduct. These are distinct issues: addressing them without separating them risks confusing a potential commercial illicit act with a personal criminal charge.
The protection of the proceedings and that of assets can proceed together. On one hand, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between conduct, products, and the contested sign; on the other hand, it may be necessary to address the effects of the seizure on company goods, data, or documents. The choice depends on the content of the act and the actual pertinence of each asset to the investigation, not solely on the economic impact of the freeze.
A first discussion requires a few organized documents: acts received, invoices, orders, payments, transport documents, contracts, authorizations, inventory, and communications with suppliers or platforms. There is no need to create hurried explanations. It is more useful to immediately distinguish what is already documented from what still needs to be verified, so as not to overlap the origin of the goods, quantities, and roles within the business.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be accused if I did not personally manufacture the fake items?
Yes, the allegation may also concern the commercial supply chain. Article 474 of the Italian Criminal Code considers conducts other than material manufacturing, such as the introduction into the State and the circulation of products with counterfeit or altered signs. The role effectively played, the products involved, and the elements required to attribute personal responsibility remain essential.
Does a supplier's invoice prove that I did not know about the counterfeiting?
No, the invoice is not enough on its own. It can be important if it precisely identifies the goods, transferor, quantities, date, and sales conditions, especially when confirmed by orders, payments, and transport. If it does not allow linking the supplier to the seized products, it resolves neither the issue of origin nor that of the information available at the time of purchase.
Does evidentiary seizure mean that I will permanently lose the goods?
No, the seizure does not definitively decide the fate of the assets. It serves to make available things deemed necessary for the ascertainment of facts and does not equate to a pronouncement of responsibility or a confiscation. It is necessary to consider the decree, the indicated assets, and their relationship with the investigation; subsequent developments depend on the proceedings and the nature of the goods.
Does a registered trademark protect any product with a similar name?
No, a concrete comparison is necessary. Registration is a relevant element, but the sign actually used, the interested products, the right holder, and the contested conduct must be considered. A similarity can open an industrial property issue without automatically proving that the crime of counterfeiting or commerce of products with false signs has been committed.
Should I delete online listings after an inspection?
It is not appropriate to impulsively delete data or documents. Advertisements, photographs, messages, and sales information may be necessary to fully reconstruct the facts, even when they help distinguish different products or batches. It is preferable to preserve them in their original form and separately address subsequent commercial management, taking into account the acts already received.
A Starting Point to Address the Allegation
Criminal defense regarding trademarks starts from verifiable facts: which sign is contested, which goods are involved, who performed the individual commercial activities, what the supply chain documents, and which measure affected the company's products or data. This distinction helps prevent treating every trademark dispute as a crime and underestimating an evidentiary seizure. If you have received an act or must face an allegation for suspicious products in Milan, you can contact me.