People v. Vo Nghia Sy, 223 Cal. App. 4th 44

Jacqueline Duenas Sy and Vo Nghia Sy were separately convicted of selling or possessing counterfeit marks and related substantive counts in San Diego; Vo’s conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor while Jacqueline’s was not, and both faced substantial restitution orders.
The Sys sold counterfeit items bearing names like Chanel, Coach, Louis Vuitton, Tiffany, and True Religion; the items were not authentic and they were not authorized retailers of these brands.
Law enforcement seized over 13,000 counterfeit items from the Sys’ San Diego store, and evidence showed knockoffs sold at various venues including trade shows and farmer’s markets.
Investigations showed Vo inviting customers to an after-hours sale and Jacqueline’s customers generally recognized the items as knockoffs, though some logos looked authentic.
The trial court ordered restitution to multiple trademark holders and to reimburse investigation costs; penalties and probation terms were set, with various post-judgment motions raised on appeal.
The appeals consolidated reflect challenges to sufficiency of evidence, instructional error, vagueness of § 350, restitution methodology, reduction of offense, and a recusal motion, all of which the court denied and affirmed the judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support counterfeiting convictions	Sy argues customers were not confused and evidence insufficient	Prosecution cannot prove counterfeit marks were sold/possessed	Sufficient evidence supports convictions
Instructional error—confusion standard for § 350	Prosecution need not prove consumer confusion; standard mis-stated	Instruction improperly limited law	Instructions were adequate; no error interms of confusion standard
Vagueness of California § 350	Statute lacks intent-to-defraud and confusion elements	Statute is definite with scienter; no vagueness	Section 350 is sufficiently definite and not unconstitutionally vague
Restitution to trademark holders and investigative costs	Restitution properly awarded for economic losses and costs	Questionable as to who is victim and recovery of investigative costs	Restitution award upheld; investigative costs recoverable as economic loss; trademark holders treated as victims under §1202.4
Reduction of offense under § 17(b)	Court should have reduced conviction to misdemeanor	Court acted within discretion given probation and conduct; Vo’s motion possibly supported but not required to overturn Jacqueline’s decision	Court acted within discretion; Jacqueline’s denial of reduction affirmed; Vo’s reduction granted separate from Jacqueline

People v. Cravens, 53 Cal.4th 500 (2012) (sufficiency standard and deference to jury findings)
Lam, United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (side-by-side comparison not required by law; fact pattern distinguished)
People v. Mathson, 210 Cal.App.4th 1297 (2012) (instructional error review; proper framing of law)
People v. Anderson, 50 Cal.4th 19 (2010) (restitution framework and direct victim concept in probation context)