HOUSTON – A man has been charged with trademark counterfeiting after investigators say they discovered more than two dozen counterfeit Apple products worth $20,000 in the back of a stolen car during a traffic stop.
The Harris County Precinct 5 Constable’s Office says deputies pulled over a stolen Toyota Camry on Richmond Avenue near Greenridge Drive around 3 a.m. on March 29.
Deputies discovered five iPads, 11 Apple watches and 13 AirPods worth more than $20,000. Conelle Davis, 44, was arrested and charged with felony counts of counterfeit trademarking.
Conelle Davis (Copyright 2024 by KPRC Click2Houston – All rights reserved.)
“I wouldn’t be able to spot it just off the naked eye,” said Alima Bangura.
“I mean, it looks pretty legit,” added Lauren from Montrose. “I might be wrong. I think the plastic wrap looks fake.”
“Upon further examination, it was discovered many of the items had identical serial numbers and contained counterfeit products which were inconsistent with the labels on the boxes in which they were packaged,” the constable’s office said.
A spokesperson for the Harris County Precinct Five Constable’s Office says that the packages were legit and so were the Apple products inside. But the tech inside was different than what was being advertised. For example, a box for a new iPad Pro might have an older model, a used product or even a broken product.
“I haven’t seen this before,” said tech expert Dennis Underwood, the CEO of CyberCrucible. “It’s really interesting because just about every one example you can give to say, ‘Oh, this is how you check for a counterfeit.’ The counterfeiters and the people who swap out devices, they read the same blog post, they read the same how-to and so really, it’s not just one thing you need to look for. It’s a combination of things.”
The constable’s office says Davis has a long history of such crimes with two arrests on trademark counterfeiting in Harris County and several other arrests on similar charges elsewhere.
All the counterfeit devices were seized as evidence, according to the constable’s office.
“If you want to be absolutely safe, if you’re buying a gift for your partner or whatever, just go to the store. It’s not worth the hassle,” Underwood said.
Copyright 2024 by KPRC Click2Houston – All rights reserved.
In early 1969, Ken and Dub, two music fans from Los Angeles, found themselves in possession of some unreleased Bob Dylan songs recorded in 1967 that had been sent as demos to his music publisher. Copies of the acetate recording spilled out among people working in the recorded music industry. Ken and Dub, both employees at a major record distributor, saw these songs as a lost Dylan album and saw a financial opportunity.
Using their connections, they found a record-pressing plant that would make copies. The result, a completely illegal and unauthorized album, was surreptitiously sold from the trunk of their cars under the title Great White Wonder.
By July 1969, the recording had spread all across North America and was even getting substantial radio airplay. The modern bootleg record had been born — and the recorded music industry had a brand new problem on its hands.
Bootlegs proliferated through the 1970s. Some originated from people working in recording studios. Others were dubbed from test pressings and cassettes that were meant for internal use. Enterprising bootleggers kept an eye on the dumpsters outside recording studios, waiting for someone to throw out used reels of audio tape, some of which contained unreleased gold at best and at worst, interesting audio documentation of the creation of an album.
Story continues below advertisement
Organizations representing the recorded music industry worked with law enforcement to clamp down on bootleggers but were faced with a global game of Whack-a-Mole. Production moved to countries where intellectual property laws were lax and law enforcement of such things was sketchy: China, Russia, Poland, Ukraine and Indonesia. Other territories — Italy, for example, along with tiny San Marino — had copyright laws where various types of bootlegging weren’t illegal at all under certain circumstances. Even in the U.K., live recordings that meet specific criteria are still considered legit. I never leave London without buying a few.
Criminal elements also got involved. It was said that the Irish Republican Army financed some of its terror campaigns through the sale of bootleg recordings. In the tri-border area of South America — the spot where the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay all come together and infamous for smuggling and organized crime — there was a steady trade in bootlegs and counterfeit records. Many made their way to the West, where they were sold from under the counter to special, trustworthy customers at independent record stores.
(Sidebar: Bootlegs are compilations of songs culled from different sources or unauthorized live recordings, although some acts, like the Grateful Dead, Pearl Jam and Metallica, encourage fans to make and trade their own recordings made at concerts. Counterfeit records are like counterfeit money: They’re designed to look like the real things in order to fool the consumer. Music fans tend to favour bootlegs because they offer material unavailable anywhere else.)
Story continues below advertisement
Bootlegging and counterfeiting continued into the CD era. Some labels, such as KTS (short for Kiss the Stone), became renowned for high-quality releases, issuing somewhere around 500 CDs by everyone from The Beatles to U2 to Nirvana. Kurt Glemser, a Canadian, released more than a dozen editions of a guide to bootlegs called Hot Wacks that became a bible to collectors.
When the internet hit in the middle ’90s, physical bootlegs went into decline. As people migrated to file-sharing, supply dried up. The last store I knew of that regularly and reliably stocked bootlegs disappeared about 15 years ago. Today, almost all bootlegs are digital and live on servers that have proven insidiously difficult to shut down.
Now there’s a new bootleg war. And it involves human voices.
The Recording Industry Association of America, the organization representing the interests of American labels, recently released its annual Notorious Markets List, which it submits to the U.S. Trade Representative in hopes that the American government will do something. It names countries that are either ignoring the theft of music or not doing enough to combat it.
In previous years, the RIAA has called out the usual suspects — Russia and China are always mentioned — but has also verbally spanked Canada for not doing enough to prevent the unauthorized copying and distribution of illegal recordings. We’re mentioned twice in this year’s report relating to hosting providers with homepages that redirect searches to sites in places like Luxembourg where such recordings can be found.
Story continues below advertisement
But this year, the Notorious Markets List cites a new problem: voice clones. I quote: “The year 2023 saw an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track. This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners.”
Only one site is mentioned by name: a cloning service designed by a 20-year-old computer science student in the U.K. Voicify.ai features vocal models of artists like Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, Bruno Mars, Eminem, Harry Styles, Adele, Ed Sheeran and many others, including Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Within seconds, anyone can have any one of these people say or sing anything you’d like.
I quote from the website: “Interactive chatting lets you converse with your celebrities as if they were your friends” and have them “(sing) covers of any songs you like, just to make you happy.” All you need is the app, which is available for both iOS and Android. The description reads: “YourArtist.AI app is one of the most popular and powerful AI music generator. It provides worldwide popular AI artist voices that sound human-like and realistic, enables anyone to produce AI music in seconds.”
Story continues below advertisement
But is this illegal? It’s unclear. The law has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to artificial intelligence. You would think that consent from the artist should be required, but there’s no uniform framework from country to country. In the U.K., there’s nothing preventing Voicify.ai from doing what it’s doing.
The RIAA is very annoyed and wants voice cloning to be classified the same as physical bootlegs, torrent sites, cyberlockers and stream-rippers. It says AI voice cloning has resulted in “an eruption of unauthorized AI vocal clone services that infringe not only the rights of the artists whose voices are being cloned but also the rights of those that own the sound recordings in each underlying musical track. This has led to an explosion of unauthorized derivative works of our members’ sound recordings which harm sound recording artists and copyright owners.”
The U.S. government seems to be listening. Just last week, a group of senators introduced a bill called the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, otherwise known as the NOFAKES Act. It would “prevent a person from producing or distributing an unauthorized AI-generated replica of an individual to perform in an audiovisual or sound recording without the consent of the individual being replicated.” Those who violate the proposed law would be liable for the damages caused by the AI-generated fake.”
The law would also go after the platforms hosting the “unauthorized replication” and they would be held “liable for the damages caused by the AI-generated fake.” That’s pretty broad, taking in everything from sites like Voicify.ai to YouTube, Spotify and TikTok.
Story continues below advertisement
Voicify.ai is still in its early days but it’s spreading fast. Other such programs will follow. Don’t be surprised if you hear someone that sounds like Taylor Swift singing Hammer Smashed Face by Cannibal Corpse. Hey, I’d listen.
Former President Donald Trump was criminally indicted by a grand jury in Georgia’s Fulton County on Monday night in connection with a probe into his efforts to overturn the state’s results in the 2020 presidential election.
The 41-count indictment against Trump and 18 of his associates, including Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump adviser John Eastman, was handed to a judge in Atlanta around 9 p.m. Eastern after a daylong session by the Fulton County grand jury, and the details…
The INFORM Consumers Act, which went into effect Tuesday, aims to limit the sales of stolen and counterfeit products on e-commerce platforms.
The measure, which requires e-commerce sites to verify and disclose information about their high-volume third-party sellers, was passed into law following a lobbying campaign to address counterfeit products after being left out of the bipartisan Chips and Science Act last year.
All online marketplaces, including eBay, Etsy, Poshmark and Amazon’s third-party sales platform, will now be required to collect information from high-volume sellers, defined as those selling 200 items or more totaling at least $5,000 over the previous 12 months. These third-party sellers must submit information such as a government-issued ID, a bank-account number, a working email address and phone number, and a taxpayer identification number.
Customers will also be able to find the verified contact information for bigger third-party sellers — those with sales of over $20,000 a year — and to get in touch with them outside of the e-commerce platform. In the past, consumers often had to engage within the platform operator in order to communicate with a seller.
Those bigger sellers will also have their full names and physical addresses listed on their product pages in addition to their contact information, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s business guide.
“This is a game changer,” said Teresa Murray, director of the consumer watchdog office at U.S. PIRG, a nonprofit that lobbies on behalf of the public interest. “For bad guys, stealing items has generally been the difficult part. Selling things online once you’ve stolen them is easy. We hope that with the INFORM Act, it’s not nearly as easy in the future.”
“‘The only people opposing this may be thieves.’”
— Teresa Murray, U.S. PIRG
The act goes into effect just weeks before Amazon Prime Day, when the world’s biggest e-commerce site rolls out discounts for Prime members. This year, Prime Day will be held over two days, on July 11 and 12.
Several e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and eBay, supported the INFORM Consumers Act. TechNet, a national network of technology CEOs and senior executives representing what it calls the innovation economy, wrote to leaders in Congress last December, saying the law would improve consumer safety and increase transparency.
In a statement provided to MarketWatch, eBay EBAY, +2.32%
said it “fully supports transparency and is committed to a safe selling and buying experience for our customers. We were proud to support” the law “to protect consumers from bad actors who seek to misuse online marketplaces, while also ensuring important protections for sellers. We are fully prepared to comply with the new law.”
Etsy ETSY, +3.45%
said it “has long been supportive of the INFORM Act passing into law, as a balanced and thoughtful approach to make the ecommerce landscape safer for both consumers and sellers.” In a statement provided to MarketWatch, the company said, “We are taking appropriate steps to comply with the INFORM Act requirements.”
Amazon AMZN, +1.45%
and Poshmark, owned by South Korea–based Naver Corp. 035420, -0.59%,
did not immediately respond to MarketWatch requests for comment.
Some analysts, however, said the new law lacks stronger protections that were included the SHOP SAFE Act, an earlier bill that did not get passed by Congress. The INFORM Act, they noted, does not hold online platforms liable when a third party sells harmful counterfeit products or when the platform has not followed certain best practices.
“Notably, the legislation is supported by Amazon and other marketplaces as it’s seen as a watered-down bill that would head off more stringent legislation like the SHOP SAFE Act,” Ben Koltun, director of research at Beacon Policy Advisors, wrote in a note last year.
So how can consumers spot counterfeit or stolen items? A guide from PIRG has tips, such as keeping an eye out for products with suspiciously low prices or featuring misspellings or mislabeling or low-quality, photoshopped photos in their listings.
PIRG also cautions consumers about purchasing medications online. Always check the legitimacy of online pharmacies, it says.
“Many online marketplaces haven’t been doing enough to protect consumers from sellers who appear to be peddling stolen or counterfeit goods,” Murray said. “The only people opposing this [new law] may be thieves.”
Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle a shareholders lawsuit related to its 2016 fake-accounts scandal, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Citing court documents, the Journal reported Monday night that Wells Fargo WFC, +3.41%
settled a class-action suit brought by shareholders who claimed bank executives overstated the bank’s progress at cleaning up its risk-management systems and governance in the wake of the scandal.
In a statement to the Journal, Wells Fargo said: “While we disagree with the allegations in this case, we are pleased to have resolved this matter.”
The settlement, which still needs to be approved by a judge, likely would be the 17th-largest ever for a shareholders’ class action, the Journal reported.
Wells Fargo has paid billions in fines and settlements related to the scandal. In December, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.7 billion as a result of alleged widespread mismanagement, and in March, a former Wells Fargo executive accused of overseeing the fake-account scheme pleaded guilty to criminal charges, agreeing to a 16-month prison term and a $17 million fine.
Wells Fargo shares are down 6% year to date and are off 8% over the past 12 months, compared to the S&P 500’s SPX, +0.30%
8% gain in 2023 and 3% rise over the past year.
These are the stories making headlines in fashion on Wednesday.
Billie Eilish lands Vogue video cover, talks climate Vogue’s first-ever video cover star Billie Eilish spoke with eight climate activists, including Quannah Chasinghorse and Wawa Gatheru, on the future of the planet. The innovative video cover is a carousel of conversation, children signing and other aesthetic shots. Directed by Mike Mills, Eilish and the activists spoke about topics like climate anxiety, navigating academia and politics, leading grassroots campaigns and environmental racism. In the cover story, Eilish also reflected on her personal journey with her body, romance and current boyfriend Jesse Rutherford. {Vogue}
Independent designers brace for recession As a recession looms ever nearer in 2023, independent designers are bracing for lean times and doubling down on what sells in order to keep their businesses going. But it’s already been a challenging past few years for independent designers who may have been affected by supply chain issues or loss of sales to an e-commerce boom. On top of everything, investors are turning away from what’s considered a risky fashion investment. “It’s almost like a rule. When recession hits, stop investing in fashion because it’s [seen as] too unpredictable,” Gary Wassner, chief executive of luxury and fashion advisory Hilldun Corporation, told the Business of Fashion. {Business of Fashion}
Adidas and Thom Browne battle over stripes in court Adidas and Thom Browne are in the midst of a legal battle over each company’s trademarked stripes. Adidas, which trademarked its trio of parallel stripes that have been a brand signature since the 1940’s, claims that Thom Browne’s use of four parallel stripes is too similar. The German sportswear company is seeking $867,225 in damages in addition to $7 million in profits that Adidas alleges Thom Browne made while selling its own striped apparel and footwear. Thom Browne argues the delay in this complaint is too long since Adidas did not object when Thom Browne debuted four stripes in its 2008 fashion show. Plus, Thom Browne says customers aren’t actually confused that the brands are the same. {WWD}
Scroll to Continue
Christian Louboutin’s lawsuit against Amazon could hold the retailer accountable for counterfeits French shoe and accessory designer Christian Louboutin (of the iconic red-soled shoes) is taking Amazon to court. The suit alleges that the shopping giant should be liable for the sponsored posts featuring counterfeit Louboutin shoes that include the brand’s trademarked red soles. Brought forth in 2019 in Belgium and Luxembourg, the case is still being decided by E.U. courts. However, judges appeared sympathetic to Louboutin in preliminary ruling. Amazon historically hasn’t done much to stop counterfeits from being sold on its platform, which is one reason why most luxury and high-end designers have avoided it. Glossy.co found that searching “Gucci,” for example, populates results replete with counterfeits. Louboutin isn’t seeking money, but rather a change in Amazon’s ad policies that currently allow for ad hijacking. {Glossy}
The announcement has led some to speculate that Trump may be hoping that becoming a presidential candidate will in some way shield him from prosecution.
Donald Trump has announced his bid to run in the 2024 presidential race. WSJ’s Alex Leary breaks down the challenges the former president will face on the campaign trail, including new political rivals and a waning influence among voters. Photo Composite: Adele Morgan
So, does an indictment—or even a felony conviction—prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?
The short answer is no. Here’s why:
The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
These three requirements—natural-born citizenship, age, and residency—are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.
Congress has ‘no power to alter’
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.
Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.
The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted Congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.
When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: “Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution.”
For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.
But in case of insurrection…
The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions—with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass laws to enforce its provisions. And in February 2021, one Democratic congressman proposed House Bill 1405, providing for a “cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”
Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing”—that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.
He might also argue that his activities on and before Jan. 6 did not constitute an “insurrection” as it is understood by the wording of the amendment. There are few judicial precedents that interpret Section 3, and as such its application in modern times remains unclear. So even if House Bill 1405 were adopted, it is not clear whether it would be enough to disqualify Trump from serving as president again.
Running from behind bars
Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign—even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.
History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running—and even being elected—while in prison. As early as 1798—some 79 years before the 14th Amendment — House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.
Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.
Several provisions within the Constitution offer alternatives that could be used to disqualify a president under indictment or in prison.
The 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to suspend the president from office if they conclude that the president is incapable of fulfilling his duties.
The amendment states that the removal process may be invoked “if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
It was proposed and ratified to address what would happen should a president be incapacitated due to health issues. But the language is broad and some legal scholars believe it could be invoked if someone is deemed incapacitated or incapable for other reasons, such as incarceration.
To be sure, a president behind bars could challenge the conclusion that he or she was incapable from discharging the duties simply because they were in prison. But ultimately the amendment leaves any such dispute to Congress to decide, and it may suspend the president from office by a two-thirds vote.
Indeed, it is not clear that a president could not effectively execute the duties of office from prison, since the Constitution imposes no requirements that the executive appear in any specific location. The jail cell could, theoretically, serve as the new Oval Office.
Finally, if Trump were convicted and yet prevail in his quest for the presidency in 2024, Congress might choose to impeach him and remove him from office. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Whether that language would apply to Trump for indictments or convictions arising from his previous term or business dealings outside of office would be a question for Congress to decide. The precise meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is unclear, and the courts are unlikely to second-guess the House in bringing an impeachment proceeding.
For sure, impeachment would remain an option—but it might be an unlikely one if Republicans maintained their majority in the House in 2024 and 2026.
Stefanie Lindquist is Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science at Arizona State University. She previously taught at Vanderbilt University, the University of Georgia and the University of Texas.
