## Facts

- Congress enacted the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2320, creating criminal liability for intentionally trafficking in goods while knowingly using a counterfeit mark in connection with them.
- Paul Baker sold “Rolex” watches that he admitted were counterfeit and that he knowingly and intentionally trafficked in.
- Baker asserted he did not know Congress had made trafficking in counterfeit goods a federal crime and believed his conduct exposed him only to civil liability.
- At trial, Baker requested a jury instruction requiring acquittal if the jury found he did not know his conduct was illegal or did not intend to violate the law.
- The district court refused the requested instruction and charged the jury consistent with the statute’s text, focusing on knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the mark.
- The jury convicted Baker under § 2320, and he appealed, challenging the refusal to give a “knowledge-of-illegality” instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s ignorance of § 2320’s criminal prohibition is a defense when the statute requires that the defendant “knowingly” use a counterfeit mark but does not expressly require knowledge that the conduct is unlawful.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that conviction required proof Baker knew his conduct was illegal or intended to violate the law.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that mistake or ignorance of law is not a defense under § 2320 as charged.
- The court concluded that “knowingly” in § 2320 refers to knowledge that the mark is counterfeit, not knowledge of the statute or awareness that the conduct is criminal.
- Because Baker admitted he knew the watches were counterfeit, the mens rea element was satisfied, and the district court properly refused the requested instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Absent clear statutory direction, criminal statutes requiring that a defendant act “knowingly” generally require knowledge of the relevant facts constituting the offense, not knowledge that the conduct violates the law.
- Mistake of fact may negate mens rea when a statute turns on factual conditions; mistake or ignorance of law ordinarily does not excuse criminal conduct.
- A defendant cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of a recently enacted statute when the statute’s text does not make knowledge of illegality an element.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld Baker’s § 2320 conviction, ruling that the statute required proof he knew he was using a counterfeit mark while trafficking in goods, not proof he knew Congress had criminalized the conduct or that he intended to violate the law.


United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 427 (5th Cir. 1986)