Rihanna’s uncle is in some serious trouble #Roommates! Leroy Fitzgerald Brathwaite has been charged with selling knock-offs from his own nieces PUMA line!
According to Barbados’ leading newspaper Nation News, Leroy has been charged under the Fair Trading Commission’s (FTC) Consumer Protection Act, and ironically Rihanna was the one who apparently noticed all the fake puma gear.
When she returned to Barbados she noticed her Puma knock-offs being sold in Swan Street. She reported it to her Puma representative, who then flew to the island and checked it, and they were ultimately the ones who made the police report.
Leroy appeared in the District “A” Magistrates’ Court yesterday and he pleaded not guilty the charges.
Via: Nation Newd
“He also denied that in trade or commerce, he engaged in conduct, to wit, exposed for sale goods bearing the trademark known as Puma which would mislead the public as to the nature of the goods.”
“Leroy was further charged that with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another and without the consent of the registered owner of a trademark Puma, he exposed for sale goods which bear the sign Puma, and which were likely to be mistaken for the registered trademark Puma. That charge was also dated May 29, 2017.”
“The slippers and shirts were valued at $1 000 and a Puma official from Curacao was in court to witness the event.”
“However, Brathwaite’s attorney Sian Lange immediately pointed to Sections 54, 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act which set out the Fair Trading Commission’s powers of regulation and procedures to be taken.Those procedures include that the FTC may serve on any person a prohibition notice “prohibiting that person from supplying or from offering to supply, agreeing to supply, exposing for supply or possessing for supply, any relevant goods which the FTC considers are unsafe, and that the Commission may serve on any person a warning notice requiring that person, at his own expense, to publish in a form and manner on occasions specified in the notice, a warning about relevant goods which the Commission considers are unsafe, which that person supplies or has supplied.”
“My client has never been contacted by the Fair Trading Commission and has never been served with a warning in accordance with the act,” Lange told the District “A” Magistrates’ Court yesterday afternoon.
“My client has never been contacted by the Fair Trading Commission and has never been served with a warning in accordance with the act,” Lange told the District “A” Magistrates’ Court yesterday afternoon.
“She then submitted that the matter was improperly brought before the court and asked for it to be dismissed.”
“The matter has been adjourned until next Tuesday, November 28, when the prosecution will respond to the submissions.”
