Connection lost
Server error
U.S. v. TORKINGTON Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller of cheap, fake Rolex watches argued he was not guilty of criminal counterfeiting because his buyers knew the items were replicas. The court disagreed, holding that the law protects the general public and the brand’s reputation from post-sale confusion, not just the initial buyer.
Legal Significance: This case established that criminal liability for trademark counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. § 2320 hinges on the likelihood of confusion among the general public, including in a post-sale context, not merely the confusion of the direct purchaser at the point of sale.
U.S. v. TORKINGTON Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
John Torkington operated a booth at a flea market where he sold replica Rolex watches for $27 each. The watches, which were kept under the counter and shown upon request, were virtually indistinguishable from authentic Rolex watches, bearing both the “Rolex” name and its crown trademark. An investigator for Rolex purchased one of the watches, fully aware that it was a replica and not a genuine product, which would sell for thousands of dollars. Subsequently, law enforcement seized 742 replica watches from Torkington’s booth. Torkington was indicted for trafficking in counterfeit goods under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 2320. The district court dismissed the indictment, reasoning that because of the low price and sales context, no direct purchaser would be confused into thinking they were buying a genuine Rolex. The government appealed the dismissal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the definition of a “counterfeit mark” under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 require a likelihood of confusion for the direct purchaser, or is the standard satisfied by a likelihood of confusion for the general public, including in a post-sale context?
Yes. The court held that the statutory definition of “counterfeit mark” is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the definition of a “counterfeit mark” under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 require a likelihood of confusion for the direct purchaser, or is the standard satisfied by a likelihood of confusion for the general public, including in a post-sale context?
Conclusion
This case is significant for confirming that the scope of criminal trademark Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo
Legal Rule
Under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A), a mark is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Analysis
The Eleventh Circuit's analysis focused on statutory interpretation and legislative intent. First, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore m
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The “likelihood of confusion” standard under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act (18
