Intention Suffices for Unidentified Property in Design-Infringement Conspiracy

Introduction

Iqbal & Anor v City of Wolverhampton Council ([2025] EWCA Crim 498) is a Court of Appeal criminal decision delivered on 17 April 2025. Majid Iqbal (A1) and Muhammad Iqbal (A2) were convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of multiple conspiracies to deal in counterfeit trademark goods, infringing copies of registered designs (Apple “AirPods”) and laundering the proceeds. They appealed against their conviction on the design-infringement conspiracy (count 10) and against their global sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment. The core issue on appeal was whether, under s.1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the House of Lords decision in R v Saik [2007] 1 AC 18, the prosecution needed to prove that the defendants knew the imported earphones exactly matched—or differed only immaterially from—the registered “AirPods” design, or merely intended to market such infringing goods.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, Holgate LJ presiding, dismissed the appeals. It held that:

Under s.1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, if property or a circumstance is unidentified at the time the conspiracy agreement is made, the prosecution need only prove that the conspirators intended the relevant fact or circumstance to exist when the substantive offence was carried out.
In the context of count 10, the earphones to be marketed had not been received or examined at the inception of the conspiracy. They were therefore “unidentified” and the Crown was required only to prove an intention to market AirPods-style earphones, not actual knowledge that every batch infringed the registered design.
The trial judge had correctly refused to withdraw count 10 for insufficient evidence: the jury, having seen seized earphones alongside Apple’s design drawings and inspection opportunities, could infer that the defendants intended to market infringing copies.
The wording of the jury directions (“should match”) did not render the conviction unsafe.
The 31-month concurrent sentences, after applying guidelines for trademark, design-infringement and money-laundering offences, were neither manifestly excessive nor outside the appropriate range.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

R v Saik [2007] 1 AC 18 (HL): Established that under s.1(2) CLA 1977 the prosecution must prove knowledge or intention regarding a fact or circumstance necessary for the substantive offence; differentiated “identified” and “unidentified” property at the agreement stage.
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039: Governs “no case to answer” submissions.
R v Ali [2020] 4 WLR 33: Applied Saik’s identified/unidentified principle to human-smuggling conspiracies.
Statutes: Criminal Law Act 1977 s.1(1)-(2); Trade Marks Act 1994 s.92; Registered Designs Act 1949 s.35ZA; Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.327.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s two‐stage analysis under Saik:

Determine whether the relevant fact or circumstance (here, the earphones infringing AirPods design) was “identified” or “unidentified” when the agreement was made.
Apply s.1(2): if identified, prove knowledge; if unidentified, prove intention that the fact or circumstance would exist when the substantive offence occurred.

The appellants argued that each batch of earphones only became identified when inspected, thus requiring knowledge. The Court rejected this “serial conspiracy” construct as artificial and absurd. Instead, the overarching business agreement—traceable to repeated orders from overseas suppliers—pre-dated any single delivery, rendering the property unidentified at the agreement stage. The judge’s jury directions correctly required proof only of intent to market infringing earphones; evidence of actual similarity was admissible to infer that intent.

Impact

This decision extends the Saik identified/unidentified property framework beyond money-laundering offences into intellectual property conspiracies. Key take-aways for practitioners:

When charging conspiracy to market counterfeit or design-infringing goods, prosecutors need not prove that every batch was examined pre-agreement; it suffices to show an intention to market infringing items.
Defense strategies seeking to dissect conspiracies into multiple, post-inspection agreements face an “absurdity” barrier unless supported by clear evidence of discrete transactional negotiations.
Jury directions must accurately reflect that only intent is required for unidentified property, with evidence of similarity used to establish that intent, not as a substantive element of conspiracy.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conspiracy Mens Rea (s.1(2) CLA 1977): If a conspiracy involves a fact or circumstance (e.g. property infringing a design), the defendant must either know or intend that fact/circumstance to exist when the substantive offence occurs. Knowledge is required only if the fact was already identified at the agreement stage; otherwise intention suffices.
Identified vs. Unidentified Property: • Identified property: already in existence and known to the conspirators when they agree (knowledge needed).
• Unidentified property: not yet received, inspected or specified at agreement (intent suffices).
Conditional Conspiracy: An agreement to market goods if they infringe a design. Even if the condition (infringement) is tested post-shipment, conspirators need only intend that infringing goods will be marketed.

Conclusion

Iqbal & Anor v Wolverhampton Council clarifies that, in intellectual property conspiracies involving goods not yet identified at the point of agreement, the Crown need only prove an intent to market infringing items. The ruling prevents artificial fragmenting of conspiracy counts into multiple discrete agreements and confirms that evidence of subsequent shipments and product similarity may be used to infer intent. Sentencing guidance for combined trademark, design-infringement and money-laundering conspiracies remains within established ranges when properly calibrated to harm, culpability and mitigation.