A visiting expert in trademarks informed a local magistrate’s court today that items seized from the Bridgetown store owned by the uncle of Barbadian superstar Rihanna, are all counterfeits of her range of Puma designer sports gear.
On the witness stand before Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes at the District ‘D’ Court in Cane Garden, St Thomas was Louis Comvalius, Director of Disosa, a brand protection service provider which had been hired by Puma for the past 18 years to investigate anti-competitive matters and to help inspect Puma’s products being sold on the market to determine their authenticity.
Comvalius, who flew into Barbados from Curacao as a witness for the prosecution, was testifying in the case in which Leroy Fitzgerald Brathwaite, the proprietor of the Upper Room clothing store on Swan Street is charged that on May 29, 2017, he sold fake versions of Rihanna’s designer slippers and T-shirts under the brand Puma, contrary to the Consumer Protection Act Cap 326D.
Brathwaite, who used to be known by the stage name Daddy I-Roy and later De Warrior, has denied the charge and that he misled the public as to the nature of the goods.
But today, Comvalius, who was shown 27 slippers and 13 t-shirts on which he had placed his initials back in 2017 following a police raid on the store, declared all of them to be counterfeit.
Asked by Police Prosecutor Assistant Superintendent Trevor Blackman to tell the court why he said they are not genuine, the witness stated: “Because the security label on the slippers is not there.”
As he examined the various slippers, the Puma trademark expert said the label is not the right label for a genuine slipper.
“The packaging is not what it is supposed to be on the fur slide slippers,” he revealed in reference to Rihanna’s brand name slipper.
The witness also told Chief Magistrate Weekes that the red slippers could not be a true Puma brand because the global sporting gear company does not manufacture slippers in that colour.
“Also, the quality and finishing are not right…the design is not used for any genuine Puma slipper,” he added.
With respect to the t-shirts, Comvalius again stated that the security label was absent and the neck label seen on the seized shirts are not used by Puma.
He also pointed to the wording on the hang tag which the witness contended ought to read “wash when dirty”, but which instead states “wash when oirty.” The witness suggested that someone replaced the ‘d’ with an ‘o’.
The brand protection official also told the court of yet another example which he argued shows the items are a knock-off of Rihanna’s designer range.
He pointed to a sticker on the t-shirt which he noted is not used by Puma in addition to the pricing of the confiscated products.
Under cross examination by counsel for the accused, Andrew Pilgrim Q.C., the witness conceded that while he would have spent thousands of hours over the years in training and considers himself an expert, he still had to reconfirm his findings regarding the items with his client Puma.
He said he needed to make sure he did not make any mistakes.
Pressed further by Pilgrim, Comvalius declared: “We are human and people can make mistakes, even experts.”
It was on that statement that the senior defence attorney sat down and ended his questioning of the witness.
Earlier when he testified, the General Consul for IP for Puma, Neil Narriman, who arrived in Barbados from Germany as another prosecution witness, also identified pricing as one method of determining whether their products are real. In fact, Narriman, who flew here from London, revealed that the Rihanna’s designer sports gear under the Puma brand are high-priced items.
For instance, he added, the Puma Fenty Fur Slide slipper is retailed for as much as US$90 a pair.
He told the court that his role as head of the Intellectual Property Department for Puma, is to deal with all related issues, study the fairness of having Puma IP registered trademarks and enforcing the rights if necessary.
The witness recalled that Puma, the third largest sporting gear company in the world which is registered with the local Corporate Affairs and Intellectual Property Office (CAIPO) had been asked by Rihanna’s management to take action against those in Barbados selling knock-off gear from her designer range.
He told the hearing he was in Barbados to meet with their new lawyer Mark Hope, based on information they had received from the superstar about the sale of counterfeit merchandise on the island.
He testified that he asked Hope and Comvalius to advise him on the most appropriate action to take and Hope recommended criminal prosecution.
He informed the Chief Magistrate that while here in 2017, he was joined by Comvalius and Hope when he visited malls and retail stores mainly in Bridgetown and found a substantial number of them selling Puma footwear.
The Puma senior official said he then took legal action against some of the stores resulting in a police raid in which only two stores, including the accused’s, were prosecuted.
In response to a question from Pilgrim, he admitted that he asked the authorities to find people to prosecute.
Pressed further by the defence counsel, the witness testified that he did not know if anyone had asked that alternative action could have been taken rather than criminal prosecution.
For instance, he said he was unaware if anybody had asked that the disputed items be removed from public display and compensation paid.
“No one advised us to address this matter through the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) or the Intellectual Property Office,” Narriman responded as Pilgrim kept up the line of cross examination about other options to deal with the allegations now before the court.
The hearing was adjourned until Friday, August 21 at 11 a.m.
(emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb)
