PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Nov 10, 2005
Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act - (Sec. 2) Amends federal criminal code provisions regarding trafficking in counterfeit goods or services to prohibit trafficking in counterfeit marks. Subjects to forfeiture any article that bears or consists of a counterfeit mark and any property derived from proceeds of, or used in the commission of, the violation. Makes code provisions regarding civil forfeitures, including general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings, applicable to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this section. Directs the court: (1) at the conclusion of forfeiture proceedings, to order the destruction of any forfeited article bearing or consisting of a counterfeit mark; and (2) to order a person convicted of such offense to pay restitution to the owner of the mark and any other victim of the property offense.
Makes criminal penalties applicable to persons who intentionally traffic, or attempt to traffic, in labels or packaging the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.
Modifies the definition of "counterfeit mark" to include a spurious mark that is applied to, or consists of, a label, patch, medallion, documentation, or packaging that is designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Provides that nothing in this Act shall entitle the United States to bring a criminal cause of action for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to: (1) review and amend the federal sentencing guidelines applicable to persons convicted of trafficking in counterfeit labels or marks; and (2) determine whether the definition of "infringement amount" under the guidelines is adequate to address situations in which the defendant has been so convicted and the item the defendant trafficked in was intended to facilitate infringement.
People & committees
Sen. Specter, Arlen [R-PA] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S12714-12718; text as passed Senate: CR S12714-12715)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S12714-12718; text as passed Senate: CR S12714-12715)
Star Print ordered on the bill, as reported.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 278.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10044)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1699 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1699 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1699 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1699 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.