N.D.Cal.: Civil seizures of counterfeit goods under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 are governed by the Fourth Amendment

Civil seizures of counterfeit goods under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 are governed by the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Shayota, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64388 (N.D.Cal. May 13, 2016):

Seizures carried out pursuant to Section 1116(d) are subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See, e.g., Gucci Am., Inc. v. Accents, 955 F. Supp. 279, 281-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“As a general matter, the fact that a court-ordered seizure … arises from the application of a private party in a civil action does not exempt it from scrutiny under the Fourth Amendment. … Accordingly, such responses to Fourth Amendment violations as suppression of unlawfully-seized evidence may well be available to victims of unlawfully-obtained seizure orders under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act, even if the goods prove in fact to be counterfeit.”). Courts consistently hold, however, that civil seizure orders issued in accordance with Section 1116(d)’s extensive requirements satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., NBA Properties v. Does, 113 F.3d 1246 [published in full-text format at 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11946], 1997 WL 271311 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (civil seizure order satisfying 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) “satisfied the Fourth Amendment requirements”); Gucci Am., Inc., 955 F. Supp. at 282 (“[H]ere all the careful requirements for issuance of the seizure orders were met, and thus the seizure orders did not violate the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights”); Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Su Youn Pak, 683 F. Supp. 929, 930 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (civil seizure order issued pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements).