Being Prosecuted for Allegedly Selling Counterfeit Goods? The 3 Critical Grounds Behind Acquittal Decisions

Many shopkeepers and business owners active in commercial life can find themselves before a criminal court one day because of a complaint petition that arrives at their door. Complaints of "sale of counterfeit goods" made by the attorneys of the rights holders of well-known trademarks pose a serious risk, particularly for businesses operating in the clothing, accessories, and textile sectors. However, obtaining a conviction in such cases is by no means always straightforward. The Court of Cassation's settled case law clearly demonstrates how evidence obtained in violation of procedure and insufficient documentation must be assessed in favor of the accused.

In this article, we examine how a person facing an accusation of trademark infringement can build their defense, which legal grounds lead to acquittal decisions, and what should be kept in mind during the litigation process.

Summary of the Situation

The typical scenario in such cases is as follows: the rights holder of a well-known sports club trademark, or of some other known trademark, files a complaint with the public prosecutor's office alleging that counterfeit goods are being sold at a place of business. The complaint is usually supported by a sales receipt or credit card slip presented by a person claiming to have purchased the item. No search or seizure may have been carried out at the place of business, and the item alleged to be counterfeit may not even have entered the case file.

In such a case file, the business owner in the position of the accused typically argues that they "have not consistently sold counterfeit goods of this brand" and that the receipt in question does not even state the brand of the item. It is precisely at this point that the Court of Cassation's approach to the matter becomes decisive for the course of the case.

The Legal Issue

In accusations of trademark infringement (sale of counterfeit goods), the fundamental question the court faces is: is a mere complaint petition together with a receipt of uncertain content sufficient for a conviction?

The answer to this question takes shape along three separate legal axes:

• Whether a duly issued search and seizure warrant exists: In situations where the item has not been physically seized and examined, can a definitive determination be made that it is "counterfeit"?
• The probative value of the receipt or slip submitted: If the receipt contains only a generic term such as "clothing" or "textile," does this document prove that the item was actually purchased from that particular place of business?
• The presence of criminal intent: If the number of items seized at the place of business is very small (for example, 1–2 units), can it be said that the accused knowingly and willingly sold counterfeit goods, or might these items have been found as a result of a customer return or a mix-up?

What Does the Court of Cassation Say?

The Court of Cassation's settled case law on this matter offers quite strong arguments in favor of the accused.

1) Evidence obtained without a search warrant is considered "prohibited evidence." According to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation for Criminal Matters (E. 2011/208, K. 2011/245, T. 2011), searches carried out without a judicial warrant, and without being documented by a report in cases where delay would be prejudicial, are unlawful. If there is no other evidence sufficient for a conviction apart from evidence obtained in this manner, an acquittal must be rendered. In the same vein, the Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber (E. 2022/3287, K. 2024/7075, T. 2024), emphasized that, in the absence of a duly issued search warrant, prosecutorial authorization, or a written order from a law enforcement superior, the items obtained cannot form the basis of a judgment under Article 38/6 of the Constitution and Articles 206/2-a, 217/2, and 230/1 of the CMK.

2) A receipt with uncertain content cannot, on its own, serve as a means of proof. The Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber (E. 2021/16143, K. 2022/5405, T. 2022), held that, given that the sales receipt contained "no indication of which item was sold" and no physical search was conducted at the place of business, there was no conclusive evidence that the item presented was sold by the accused. In another decision of the same Chamber (E. 2021/16125, K. 2022/5403, T. 2022), the principle that "the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused" was applied on similar grounds. In a related civil court decision as well (Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/4556, K. 2025/3136, T. 2025), it was stated that the absence of the item's name on the receipt made it impossible to establish that the item was purchased from the defendant.

3) A small quantity of goods casts doubt on the existence of intent. In a dissenting opinion regarding a decision of the Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber (E. 2018/120, K. 2021/1082, T. 2021), it was argued that where only one counterfeit item was seized at the place of business, there was no conclusive evidence that the accused knowingly sold it as counterfeit. In another similar decision (E. 2017/5573, K. 2019/10578, T. 2019), it was stated that where the accused's defense that "the item may have gotten mixed in or been exchanged by a customer" could not be refuted, the conviction decision had to be reversed.

Points to Watch

Business owners facing this type of accusation should pay attention to the following points:

• Be sure to request the search report. If the file does not contain a duly issued judicial warrant, a written authorization from the prosecutor's office, or a written order from a law enforcement superior, this constitutes a strong basis for the defense.
• Emphasize any ambiguity in the evidence. Whether the receipt clearly states the brand or type of the item is one of the most critical points in the case file.
• Question whether a physical examination of the item was carried out. Whether an item is genuinely counterfeit often requires a technical/accounting examination; conclusions reached by mere observation may be insufficient.
• Present your commercial history. Your place of business's general sales policy, stock records, and documents from previous periods can be useful in refuting an allegation of "a consistent pattern of infringement."

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

While an accusation of trademark infringement is a serious matter that must be taken seriously, the Court of Cassation's settled case law demonstrates that a conviction in such cases is subject to a much higher threshold than commonly assumed. A conviction rendered without a duly conducted search, where the nature of the evidence is uncertain and criminal intent has not been proven, is highly vulnerable to reversal by the higher courts.

If you are confronted with such a complaint, the first thing you should do is examine, together with a criminal defense attorney, whether the evidence in the file was obtained in accordance with procedure and its content in detail. A defense strategy built on timely and accurate objections can play a decisive role in resolving the process in your favor.