The Criminal Framework for Trademark Counterfeiting
The unlawful use of another's trademark or service mark, appellation of origin or geographical indication is punished in Georgia by Article 196 of the Criminal Code, and the norm covers the whole cycle of marking goods — from the making of the mark to the production of marked goods and their introduction into circulation. Boundaries should be noted as well: the registration and cancellation of marks follow the regime of the national intellectual-property centre, and the automatic statutory-damages regime known from the United States system does not exist in Georgian criminal law — criminal liability here is built on quantitative thresholds.
The Compositions and the Sanctions
The first part establishes the basic composition: the unlawful making in a large quantity of another's mark, appellation or indication, or any other unlawful use of them, as well as the production or introduction into civil circulation of goods unlawfully marked with such signs or with a registered firm name, having caused significant damage — punished by a fine or corrective labour for up to two years, or imprisonment for the same term. The second part regulates a separate composition: the false indication of a warning marking together with an unregistered mark — punished by a fine or community service from one hundred twenty to one hundred eighty hours, or corrective labour for up to one year, or imprisonment for two to three years. The third part aggravates liability where the act was committed more than once, by a person convicted of such a crime, or by a group by prior conspiracy — a fine or imprisonment for three to five years.
Quantitative Thresholds and Defence Tactics
The note to the norm defines two simplifying thresholds: the making is "in a large quantity" where the total number of marks exceeds one thousand units; and the crime is treated as causing significant damage where the value of the produced or circulated marked goods exceeds five thousand lari. These two figures are the pivots of the case: for the defence — if the quantity does not cross the threshold or the damage is not established, the composition does not stand; for the prosecution — they are the starting point for showing that both thresholds are exceeded. In practice the argument usually concentrates on three points: the similarity of the mark and its capacity to mislead the consumer; the method of calculating the value of the goods; and the fact of introduction into circulation. Each depends on documents — inspection protocols, expert examination and accounting traces are the inventory of the case. Note that the two thresholds attach to different objects: the one-thousand-unit threshold concerns only the marks made, while the five-thousand-lari threshold concerns the value of the marked goods — the prosecution must therefore establish each direction separately.
Distinguishing the Two Compositions and Building the Case
The two compositions — the basic one and the false warning marking — must be read separately. The basic composition joins three elements: the objective side — the making or other use of the mark, the production or circulation of goods; the quantitative side — the one-thousand-unit threshold for marks made and the five-thousand-lari threshold for the value of goods; and the consequential side — significant damage, tied directly to the value threshold. The second composition — the false indication of a warning marking together with an unregistered mark — is not built on a quantitative threshold and has a different logic: it serves the deception of the consumer, because the warning marking points precisely to the fact of registration; hence its sanction includes hourly community service. The structure of the sanction is also distinctive: the code quantifies community service in hours, from one hundred twenty to one hundred eighty, and couples it with corrective labour by an "and/or" formula — a combination not found in the other compositions of this norm. For the defence this distinction is an opportunity: if the episode as established fits one composition and not the other, the prosecution's qualification becomes contestable; and conversely, where both thresholds are genuinely exceeded, the defence's hope remains on the internal imprecision of the elements — whose mark, which goods, and at what value.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below we answer the most common questions about trademark counterfeiting.
What penalty attaches to the basic composition?
A fine or corrective labour for up to two years or imprisonment for the same term; for a false warning marking — community service of one hundred twenty to one hundred eighty hours or imprisonment for two to three years.
When is the quantity "large"?
Where the total number of marks made exceeds one thousand units.
What is the significant-damage threshold?
The value of the marked goods exceeding five thousand lari — below that boundary the crime is not deemed to cause significant damage.
What aggravates liability?
Repetition, a prior conviction for such a crime, or commission by a group by prior conspiracy — a fine or imprisonment for three to five years.
What is punished for a false warning marking?
A fine, community service of one hundred twenty to one hundred eighty hours and/or corrective labour for up to one year, or imprisonment for two to three years.
How We Help on Legal.ge
A counterfeiting case requires precise analysis of both the elements of the composition and the quantitative thresholds. On Legal.ge you can consult an experienced advocate in intellectual property and criminal law who will assess your situation and protect your interests. Fill in the request form on the site and receive qualified assistance.