Two local businessman, accused of selling PUMA knock offs, are yet to know their fates.
Yesterday, the case against the Director of Ouch boutique, Grenville Ricardo Delpeache, continued before Magistrate Graveney Bannister.
Delpeache, 44, of Passage Road, Passage Gardens, St Michael, allegedly sold counterfeit PUMA Fenty by Rihanna, Creeper Sneakers and PUMA Fenty slippers in May last year.
The magistrate heard evidence from a number of witnesses, including Delpeache’s custom broker Anderson Cadogan, two officers from the Corporate Affairs Intellectual Property Office and Monee Hope, who purchased the fake PUMA Fenty slippers that led to the businessman’s arrest.
Under questioning from Acting Superintendent of Police Trevor Blackman, Hope, whose father is a PUMA executive, revealed that she had purchased the slippers for $100 although they carried a price tag of $200. However, she said a salesperson assured her that the shoes were authentic.
It was only when she arrived home and compared them to a $150 pair that she had purchased in the US that she realized they were “knock off shoes” and a report was made to police.
The case against Delpeache, who is represented by attorneys Satcha Kissoon and Romain Marshall, continues next Tuesday.
In the meantime, another local businessman, Leroy Fitzgerald Brathwaite, who is charged with passing off slippers and t-shirts as PUMA products, returns to court on March 27.
It is alleged that the 1st Avenue, Gooding Road, Station Hill, St Michael resident, falsely represented that 11 pairs of slippers and 13 t-shirts were of a particular standard, quality, style or model of PUMA on May 29 last year.
The 53-year-old, who is currently on $1,000 bail, is also accused of exposing the goods for sale on the same day, with the intention of benefiting from their sale, and exposing the items for sale without the consent of the owner of the PUMA trademark.
When the matter first came up in the District ‘A’ Magistrates’ Court, Brathwaite’s attorney Sian Lange called on Magistrate Kristie Cuffy-Sargeant to dismiss the charges against her client on the grounds that they were “improperly” brought before the court.
The attorney also contended that only the Fair Trading Commission could bring such a charge.
However ASP Blackman said the case before the criminal court was “well founded” as if fell under Section 19 Clause C of the Police Act.
“Even though reference is made to consumer protection as it relates to the Fair Trading Commission . . . the police can bring criminal prosecution against anyone who has committed an offence. There is also no bar to the police in bringing any charge under the trademarks legislation in relation to any offence that has been reported,” the prosecutor said.
However, Lange maintained that “these criminal offences are associated with a particular type of activity which has more [to do] with organized crime groups who are dealing on the black market”.
She then requested an adjournment so that she could make further submissions in writing.