## Facts

- Nam Ping Hon and his wife operated a Canal Street business in Manhattan selling counterfeit “prestige-brand” watches bearing trademarks such as Rolex, Gucci, Piaget, and Movado.
- In early 1988, undercover Customs agents contacted the Hons and were offered imitation watches at approximately $13–$17 each; the watches resembled genuine products but were poorly manufactured.
- On January 25, 1988, agents bought eight counterfeit watches at the Hons’ business after indicating they might later buy a much larger quantity.
- On August 23, 1988, Sandy Hon agreed to sell Agent Bonnie Goldblatt 1,200 counterfeit watches on August 25 for $17,200 total and provided a list of styles and prices.
- On August 25, Hon and Sandy met Goldblatt outside the Canal Street address; Hon carried two shopping bags, and both Hons indicated the watches were inside.
- After Goldblatt suggested moving because police were nearby, agents arrested the Hons near the car trunk and seized the bags, which contained hundreds of counterfeit watches.
- At trial, agents testified about how the initial eight watches and the seized watches were labeled, stored, and transferred; the handling included an incorrect case number on a sealed bag and some storage in unlocked locations.

## Issues

1. Whether the “likely to cause confusion” element of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 permits the jury to consider confusion among non-purchasers, rather than limiting confusion to actual or potential purchasers.
2. Whether the counterfeit watches should have been excluded for an allegedly inadequate chain of custody.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed Hon’s convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2320.
- The court held that § 2320’s “likely to cause confusion” element is not limited to purchasers or potential purchasers; confusion among non-purchasing members of the public may be considered.
- The court held that the government provided sufficient assurance of the identity and unchanged condition of the watches; alleged gaps or irregularities in custody went to weight, not admissibility.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the watches into evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2320, “likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive” is not restricted to point-of-sale purchasers; it may include confusion of relevant segments of the public, including non-purchasers.
- In criminal trademark-counterfeiting cases, jury instructions on likelihood of confusion may allow consideration of confusion beyond buyers when consistent with the statute’s text.
- Physical evidence is admissible when the proponent provides reasonable assurance that the item is what it is claimed to be and is in substantially the same condition; perfect custody is not required.
- Defects such as mislabeling, unsealed containers, or storage in non-secure locations generally affect the weight of evidence for the jury rather than its admissibility, absent a concrete showing of tampering.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hon’s counterfeiting convictions, ruling that § 2320’s likelihood-of-confusion requirement can include confusion among non-purchasers and that the government’s chain-of-custody showing was sufficient for admission of the seized counterfeit watches.


United States v. Hon, 904 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1990)