Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that testimony from a trademark-investigation expert who knew certain marks were registered but had never personally viewed the trademark-registration documents was insufficient by itself to prove the registration element of trademark counterfeiting under R.C. 2913.34. The court affirmed the reversal of Juanita Troisi’s conviction, concluding that the evidence was insufficient and that double-jeopardy protections barred retrial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that the marks on the seized goods were registered on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as required by R.C. 2913.34.
- Whether the evidentiary gap concerning trademark registration was a procedural deficiency permitting retrial or an insufficiency of evidence triggering double-jeopardy protection.
- Whether the court needed to decide whether certified copies of trademark registrations were required to prove that the seized marks were identical or substantially indistinguishable from registered marks.
Holdings
- A trademark-investigation expert's testimony that he was aware certain trademarks were registered, without having personally viewed the trademark-registration documents or otherwise identifying evidence establishing registration on the principal register, is insufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the marks were registered as required by R.C. 2913.34.
- Because the evidence was insufficient to prove an essential element of the offense, the Double Jeopardy Clauses barred retrial; the deficiency was not merely a procedural defect.
Key quotations
“A trademark-investigation expert’s testimony that he is aware that certain trademarks are registered but that he has never personally viewed the trademark-registration documents is insufficient to prove by itself that the trademarks are registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as required for a conviction under R.C. 2913.34.” (syllabus)
“In sum, his testimony was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the marks were registered.” (¶ 8)
“Double-jeopardy protections therefore attach, and retrial is barred.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Juanita Troisi hosted a purse party in Kirtland, Ohio, where she offered purses and other goods for sale. Police raided the party and seized more than 1,700 allegedly counterfeit purses, wallets, and jewelry items; Troisi also made statements acknowledging that the goods were not authentic. The State's trademark-investigation expert, Timothy Richissin, testified that he recognized the marks and believed the goods were counterfeit, but he had never personally viewed or obtained United States Patent and Trademark Office registration documents, and no certified registration records or genuine trademark examples were introduced.
Procedural history
Troisi was indicted on four counts, two of which were dismissed. A jury convicted her of trademark counterfeiting under R.C. 2913.34(A)(4) and possessing criminal tools under R.C. 2923.24. The Eleventh District reversed and vacated the convictions for insufficient evidence and improper foundation for the expert testimony. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the State's discretionary appeal and affirmed.