United States v. Chong Lam
677 F.3d 190
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lam and Chan participated in manufacturing, importing, and selling handbags and wallets bearing counterfeit marks, controlled multiple U.S. entities, and shifted operations to evade CBP detection.
- CBP seized goods from 2002–2005 across multiple ports, finding counterfeit Burberry marks hidden inside legitimate bags; 2005 Norfolk seizures were pivotal.
- Marco Leather Goods’ alleged pattern combined a plaid with an overlay (the Marco knight) and Burberry’s marks were central to the charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a).
- Second trial (2010) followed a hung jury on the first trial; government sought to prove substantial indistinguishability and knowledge of counterfeiting.
- During trial, the government urged a 'average consumer' perspective for assessing indistinguishability; the district court gave curative instructions.
- Lam and Chan challenged sufficiency of the evidence, vagueness of § 2320, and prosecutorial comments; the district court denied post-trial relief and the verdicts were upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for counterfeit mark | Lam and Chan contest the mark as counterfeit; insufficient similarity between Marco and Burberry marks. | Lam and Chan argue lack of substantial indistinguishability and knowledge of counterfeiting. | Evidence sufficient; marks substantially indistinguishable; knowledge inferred. |
| District court response to jury question about knight overlay | Lam and Chan claim error in treating knight as part of the comparison. | Lam and Chan contend the knight should have been considered; district court erred. | No plain error; instructions viewed in context, not reversible. |
| Constitutionality of § 2320 as vague | Statute's 'substantially indistinguishable' language is impermissibly vague. | Statute provides adequate notice and is not unconstitutionally vague. | Section 2320 not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and whether new trial warranted | Government remarks misstated law and biased the jury. | Defense argues prejudice and need for new trial; arguments uncurbed. | District court's denial of Rule 33 affirmed; curative instructions deemed sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Habegger, 370 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. 2004) (outlines elements of § 2320(a) and knowledge requirements)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) (comparing composite marks; 'Chewy Vuiton' style analysis)
- Montres Rolex, S.A. v. Snyder, 718 F.2d 524 (2d Cir. 1983) (average-purchaser perspective for substantial indistinguishability in civil context)
- Pepe (U.K.) Ltd. v. Ocean View Factory Outlet Corp., 770 F.Supp. 754 (D.P.R. 1991) (ocular/visual comparison approach in civil context)
- United States v. McEvoy, 820 F.2d 1170 (11th Cir. 1987) (vagueness challenge to § 2320 not successful)