18 U.S.C. 2320 addresses intentional trafficking or attempted trafficking in goods or services while knowingly using a counterfeit mark, along with specified related conduct. A product’s poor quality alone does not establish this offense. The mark, its protected status, the transaction, and the defendant’s knowledge must be examined. [1]
Which penalty tier applies?
For an individual’s ordinary first offense, the statute authorizes up to ten years in prison and a fine up to $2 million; other defendants face a different fine limit. Repeat offenses and certain counterfeit military goods, drugs, bodily injury, or death can carry substantially greater penalties. A maximum is not a prediction of the sentence. [1]
Knowledge is central
Relevant records can include supplier communications, authenticity representations, packaging, invoices, warnings from trademark owners, and steps taken after concerns arose. Being deceived by a supplier can present a different knowledge question from deliberately ordering copied labels.
A defense may also dispute whether the mark qualifies as counterfeit under the statute or whether the alleged conduct satisfies trafficking. Genuine-product resale and unauthorized mark use require careful factual analysis rather than assuming every trademark dispute is criminal.
Property consequences
Section 2323 separately addresses forfeiture, destruction, and restitution. Exposure can therefore extend beyond imprisonment and a criminal fine. [2]
Keep authenticity and authorization distinct
A genuine item, an unauthorized reproduction, an item bearing a confusingly similar mark, and an actual counterfeit mark do not automatically receive identical criminal treatment. The statutory definition contains conditions and exceptions that should be examined against the goods and mark actually used. A civil trademark complaint is therefore not a substitute for the government’s criminal proof. Likewise, using a disclaimer such as “replica” does not necessarily resolve knowing use of a qualifying counterfeit mark in trafficking. Compare the physical goods, packaging, seller statements, and the mark’s legal status, and avoid assuming either that disclosure always cures the offense or that every infringement proves it. [1]
Preserve the complete purchasing and sales records before responding to an investigation. Compare mail-fraud elements and bankruptcy fraud if a case involves additional alleged schemes; each charge needs its own proof.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.