Texas Senate Bill SB1164

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to the disposition of an item bearing a counterfeit trademark seized in connection with a criminal offense.

Impact

The bill modifies Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically adding Article 18.182 which stipulates the actions courts must take in cases involving counterfeit trademarks. Its implementation is likely to have significant implications for both law enforcement and businesses, as it directly impacts how counterfeit goods are treated under the law. The changes ensure that trademark owners have a clearer path to reclaim their property while also enforcing penalties against those found guilty of counterfeiting. This may encourage more stringent enforcement of trademark laws in the state.

Summary

Senate Bill 1164 addresses the legal framework surrounding items bearing counterfeit trademarks that are seized in connection with criminal offenses. Under this bill, if a person is convicted of offenses relating to counterfeit marks, the court is mandated to dispose of the seized items either by returning them to the rightful owner of the protected trademark or by destroying them. This establishes a clear procedure for the handling of such items post-conviction, seeking to streamline the process of enforcing trademark protection laws in Texas.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 1164 appears to be generally favorable, as indicated by its unanimous passage through both legislative chambers without any recorded opposition. Supporters likely view the legislation as a necessary step to strengthen intellectual property rights and protect businesses from the adverse effects of counterfeit products. By making it easier for trademark owners to reclaim their goods, the bill reflects a proactive approach to addressing counterfeiting issues in Texas.

Contention

While there may not be notable points of contention documented during its discussion and voting, the bill's approach certainly raises potential concerns regarding the balance of power between trademark rights and the rights of individuals accused of counterfeit offenses. Critics might argue about the implications of forfeiting goods without extensive due process or the potential for misuse of the law. However, the absence of dissent during voting suggests a broad consensus on the issue among legislators.