You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 22, 2022

The Fight against Counterfeits Online: Perspectives from an E-commerce Platform

Subscribe to Updates

In this guest piece, Andy Chua, senior vice president of the Lazada IP Rights (IPR) Protection Team, reveals how Southeast Asia’s leading e-commerce platform protects IP rights online while meeting rights holders’ needs for efficiency and responsiveness. This article, which was first published in World Trademark Review, is the first in a two-part series about trademark enforcement against online counterfeits.

 

It is no secret that online marketplaces have experienced rapid growth due to the digitalisation of retail and related fields. This rapid development has unfortunately also created an additional avenue for bad actors to distribute counterfeit goods to largely unaware consumers—thereby causing losses and reputational damage to brands associated with these counterfeit products. As Southeast Asia’s leading e-commerce platform, Lazada has long prioritised protecting the IP rights of brands and sellers on our platforms and has invested in safeguards that ensure consumers can shop and transact with confidence on Lazada.

In March 2019, Lazada established the IPR Protection Team, which is charged with the mission of developing a comprehensive IP rights protection programme at Lazada. To our knowledge, Lazada is the only e-commerce company in Southeast Asia with a team dedicated to addressing rights holders’ IP concerns. Beyond the initial setting up of the dedicated IPR Protection Team, Lazada continues to invest significantly in human resources and technology infrastructure to meet rights holders’ needs for efficiency and responsiveness. Presently, more than 30 people are employed full time and assigned to this effort.

The IP rights protection programme at Lazada comprises four core components:

  • a strict IP rights policy;
  • merchant education;
  • technology-driven governance; and
  • stakeholder collaboration.

Strict IP rights policy

On each of the six Lazada country platforms, the IP rights policy is publicly available in the respective local language and clearly sets out the types of listings that would violate Lazada’s IP policy. Generally, the policy prohibits the listing of IP-infringing products or services or using trademark or copyright-infringing content within a listing.

Merchant education

Lazada strongly supports merchants to grow their businesses on the platform in a fair and sustainable way that safeguards consumer interests and the rights of other sellers. This is why Lazada invests in merchant education to maintain rigorous platform governance and ensure that all merchants are schooled in lawful practices and made well aware of the platform’s terms and conditions. This education is an essential part of the merchant onboarding process.

All new merchants undergo a series of educational modules through the web-based Lazada University. Through these modules, merchants learn about Lazada’s platform policies, including those relating to IP rights. Merchants are informed of the consequences of noncompliance, which include escalating penalties that could lead to account suspension and/or termination.

Technology-driven governance – the IPP Platform

As of June 2019, Lazada sites have been integrated within a web-based portal, known as the IPP Platform. This allows rights holders to register enforcement accounts, submit takedown requests and monitor the status of the takedown requests led across all six markets in which Lazada operates. The IPP Platform also serves as a repository for IP rights documents. Rights holders only need to upload the necessary documents once, when they submit the first takedown request. Thereafter, their information and IP rights documents are logged in the system and ready for use in relation to future (relevant) takedown requests.

The IPP Platform is a technological tool developed by the Alibaba Group and is highly beneficial in driving efficiencies around the processing of takedown requests by rights holders. While the IPP Platform also supports the submission of takedown requests for other e-commerce platforms within the Alibaba Group (ie, 1688.com, Alibaba.com, AliExpress, Taobao, Tmall and Tmall Global), the review and processing of takedown requests directed at listings on Lazada platforms is carried out independently by the Lazada IPR Protection Team and in accordance with Lazada’s own set of review and processing guidelines.

Through the IPP Platform, Lazada is able to process takedown requests expeditiously. From July 2020 to June 2021, 98% of takedown requests were processed within three business days. The number of takedown requests processed increased by 22%, while the average processing time per takedown request decreased by 31% year on year.

Stakeholder collaboration

Lazada understands that effective IP protection requires targeting the physical sources of counterfeit goods, not just the online platforms where they are sold. This is why Lazada is a strong supporter and collaborator when it comes to working with rights holders and local law enforcement agencies in online investigations and enforcement actions all the way up the supply chain—sending a clear message to manufacturers and distributors of counterfeit products that Lazada platforms are off limits.

From July 2020 to June 2021, Lazada partnered with multiple rights holders, trade associations and local law enforcement agencies on several online enforcement actions, which led to almost 100,000 counterfeit goods being seized.

Notably, an enforcement raid in Thailand in May 2021—which yielded more than 82,000 counterfeit Panasonic batteries – was the rights holder’s largest seizure in Southeast Asia to date. The batteries were intended for sale on various e-commerce platforms.

Lazada also actively participated in Operation Pangea XIV—a global enforcement operation coordinated by INTERPOL from 18 to 25 May 2021, targeting the sale of counterfeit and illicit medicines and medical products. The operation involved police, customs and health regulatory authorities from 92 countries. Through Lazada’s collaboration with INTERPOL and the relevant local authorities, enforcement actions in the Philippines led to the seizure of various counterfeit health supplements.

As well as collaborating with law enforcement and rights holders, at Lazada we also organise our own events to engage stakeholders in discussions about IP protection. Rights holders can provide feedback directly to Lazada, share best practices and learn about how Lazada protects their IP rights. As an example, Lazada held a hybrid IP protection workshop on 3 March 2021, where guest speakers included representatives from Under Armour, Eli Lily and the Pharmaceutical Security Institute. The event was attended by more than 70 people and received positive reviews from many of the attendees.

Building a platform for everyone

A robust platform IP rights protection programme benefits everyone, including SMEs. During Lazada’s celebration of World IP Day this year, one of Lazada’s SME merchants, Adrian Goh, manager of the White Magic store on Lazada, spoke about how Lazada’s efforts in creating a safe and secure environment help businesses to thrive.

“After we reported the counterfeit products and got them progressively removed, we actually saw a significant increase in our sales, somewhere close to 30%,” Goh said, “because when the counterfeits are removed, the buyers will go back to buying the original brands”.

As illustrated by Goh, having clear and stringent IP policies in place, which are clearly communicated to users, combined with an efficient reporting and takedown system, are the key building blocks of a robust IP rights protection programme that will benefit businesses. In addition, an overall readiness to review and develop new processes or solutions through close collaboration with rights holders, policymakers, law enforcement agencies, industry associations and even other platforms will be critical in addressing and overcoming complex and pervasive issues, making the online world a safer place to transact for all.

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More