Intellectual Property Case

A manufacturer of consumer healthcare products began receiving complaints on their consumer information line. The complaints regarded a variation in taste and texture of several products purchased at a discount chain. The consumers complained that the product they purchased was unusable, watery and smelled tainted. The company, through a Private Investigator in New York, purchased several products that were counterfeit. The name and packaging of the product was exactly the same as the legitimate product, including the company’s trademarks. The Private Investigators also purchased several products where packaging was so similar to the company’s copyrights and trademarks that a federal judge deemed them sufficiently confusing to consumers and signed a seizure order allowing the company's attorneys and a seizure team accompanied by United States Marshals to enter locations operated by the discounter and a distributor. It was suspected counterfeit product was being received, stored and distributed from the locations. The locations also included offices where it was suspected that records regarding the counterfeit merchandise were kept. The order also allowed the seizure team to locate, enter and search any additional locations that are identified while onsite.

At 7am on a Saturday Morning, the Seizure Team, which included the attorneys, computer forensic specialists from GDF, private investigators and the United States Marshals convened at locations in New York City, Long Island, New Jersey and Los Angeles. At approximately 8am EST the seizure teams entered the locations simultaneously surprising the workers who arrived just minutes earlier. After the Marshals served the order and secured the premises the investigators began searching for counterfeit product and the computer forensic specialists began imaging disk drives and searching for additional locations. GDF computer forensic specialists were able to image and search approximately 30 computers in 5 locations as well other digital assets such as cellular phones, fax machines, telephone systems and voicemail systems while the investigators and attorneys searched the warehouses and offices. While only 3 counterfeit products and 2 cases of the “confusing” merchandise was seized the computers yielded a wealth of information.

The examination identified additional locations and communications concerning suppliers, shipments and quantities. After onsite imaging, lab analysis supported reports of sales, shipping manifests, stock records and supplier relationships relevant to the suspected counterfeit merchandise.

Counsel could use the organized records to investigate distribution and financial questions. The value of the technical work was linking communications, inventory and transactions across the sources. Legal remedies and financial outcomes should not be inferred from the volume of data collected.