شيلي

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 8: Criminal Enforcement

Supreme Court of Chile [2021]: Pablo Cariola Cubillos and Servicio Nacional de Aduanas v Guangyi Chen, Case No. 17299-2021

Date of judgment: June 16, 2021

Issuing authority: Supreme Court of Chile

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Criminal)

Subject matter: Enforcement of IP and Related Laws

Plaintiff: Pablo Cariola Cubillos and Servicio Nacional de Aduanas  

Defendant: Guangyi Chen

Keywords: Motion for annulment, Right to due process, Customs smuggling

Basic facts:  The defendant, Guangyi Chen, a representative of Comercial Lian Li Limitada, was convicted by the Criminal Oral Trial Court of San Antonio of three offenses under Law No. 19.039 on Industrial Property, in conjunction with the crime of smuggling.  The conviction was based on the importation of counterfeit goods on three separate occasions: 200 backpacks with the Wenger logo, 2600 gloves with the Oakley Inc. logo, and 120 sneakers with the Merrell logo from the Wolverine Outdoors Inc. brand.

Held:  The Supreme Court of Chile rejected the motion for annulment of the decision of the Criminal Oral Trial Court of San Antonio, filed by the defendant, Guangyi Chen, thereby upholding the conviction handed down by the Criminal Oral Trial Court of San Antonio.

Relevant holdings in relation to Criminal Enforcement: The defendant argued that the evidence was unlawfully obtained due to an alleged violation of the chain of custody. The defense claimed that the seized goods had been held for over three years by a warehouse keeper authorized by the National Customs Service (SNA), which was also a plaintiff in the case. The defense maintained that this compromised the legality of the forensic evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, holding that the SNA acted in accordance with the law (Law No. 19.912 of October 24, 2003, Bringing Law No. 17.336 on Intellectual Property into line with the Agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Customs Ordinance). The law allows Customs to designate a provisional depositary. The Supreme Court determined that there was no illegality or violation of the defendant’s property rights. Furthermore, it concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the chain of custody was not maintained intact.

Relevant legislation: Article 28(a) of Law No. 19.039 on Industrial Property, articles 63, 168, and 178  of Decree-Law No. 213/1953 on the Customs Ordinance, Law No. 19.912 of October 24, 2003, Bringing the Law No. 17.336 on Intellectual Property into line with the Agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO), articles 297, 342, 373, and 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, article 19, no. 3 of Political Constitution, article 8.2 of American Convention on Human Rights.