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

July 14, 2021

Panasonic Finds a Lasting Solution to Online Counterfeiting Problems

Subscribe to Updates

With the rapid growth of internet use and the increasing dominance of online selling, efficient enforcement of intellectual property rights has become more cumbersome for brand owners. Any infringer equipped with the right technology can easily sell counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, and they can often evade responsibility by merely reposting listings or switching vendor names whenever they are challenged.

In this environment, brand owners have found that it is rarely enough to simply request the takedown of infringing pages. Instead, tackling online infringement effectively and stopping the spread of counterfeit products means uncovering the true source, arresting the infringer, and seizing the goods to prevent them from being relisted entirely.

Panasonic’s Success

When the Japanese multinational electronics maker Panasonic discovered that fake batteries were being sold in Thailand through e-commerce websites, their first step was to send takedown requests to the platforms hosting the offending pages. However, the problem remained, with several of the counterfeit retailers shifting their advertising of counterfeit Panasonic goods to other posts.

Tilleke & Gibbins thus helped Panasonic attack the problem at its root by seeking to uncover the true identity of the online sellers. We confirmed that the same infringing sellers were continuing to post counterfeit Panasonic items for sale, and during a preliminary investigation, we discovered that five online sellers even shared the same shipping address.

Unsurprisingly, the address was a fake as well—our investigation team found that the given location had nothing to do with the Panasonic counterfeiting operation, and further investigation was required before the team found the hidden location of the real warehouse.

We then shared the results of our investigation with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) of the Royal Thai Police to alert them to the true identity and address of the online infringer, and coordinated with them to conduct a successful raid action on May 18, 2021. The police seized and inspected 82,464 counterfeit Panasonic items and arrested the actual infringer, a Chinese national who confessed that he had brought over counterfeit Panasonic batteries from Shenzhen, China, to sell and distribute via online channels. He was then charged with possession of goods under a counterfeit trademark registered in Thailand, which is punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment, financial penalties of up to THB 400,000, or both. Based on the value of the goods seized in the raid, the damages amounted to more than THB 2.7 million (USD 86,800)—one of the largest seizures of Panasonic-branded counterfeit goods in the whole Asia-Pacific region.

IP Enforcement in the Digital Age

As this case shows, effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital age requires a sterner course of action by brand owners. While takedown requests are a useful initial tool that can sometimes succeed, more and more trademark owners are finding that takedown requests on their own are insufficient for tackling online infringement, as many infringers respond by simply moving their goods to sell on different platforms. Instead, a thorough investigation that uncovers the root source of the counterfeit goods is a much more effective approach that can ultimately lead to the arrest of the infringer and prevent the sale and distribution of the infringing goods altogether.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 21, 2023
In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 30, 2023
In its ongoing efforts to enhance Indonesia’s intellectual property e-filing system, the country’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has consistently introduced improvements to the online system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several noteworthy changes that differ from previous versions of the system. These changes bear significant importance for applicants who intend to file IP applications, and include the changes highlighted below for designs, patents, and trademarks. Designs File format and view limitation. Under current rules, all design drawings must be submitted in JPG format, and only one view is permitted per page. No refund requests. Once the application payment has been made, refund requests are no longer an option. Figure limitation. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, with an exception made for reference and perspective views. Patents Title consistency. If an invention is already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title in the Indonesian registration application must match the title registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Bibliographic data matching. In national phase applications, it is essential for all bibliographic data to mirror the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. This conformity is crucial for a seamless application process. Excess claim fees. A new requirement stipulates that excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Goods and services selection. The DGIP requires applicants to choose their desired goods and services from a predefined list, and the provided list is not editable. The DGIP periodically updates this list, but there is no fixed schedule for these updates. Moreover, these updates can sometimes entail removal of items from the list, and requesting the addition of goods or services is often challenging, especially if a similar alternative already exists
Read More
October 25, 2023
Indonesia and South Korea have opened a patent prosecution highway (PPH) mechanism that allows applicants to seek patent protection in Indonesia by basing their application on a granted Korean patent. The PPH was opened following the conclusion of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on September 8, 2023. One of the MOUs is about comprehensive cooperation in the field of intellectual property, while the other spells out the details of the PPH mechanism. When requested, the PPH will help applicants speed up the examination process for their patent applications in Indonesia using the substantive examination results issued by the KIPO. This can substantially shorten the amount of time required for the examination process period from approximately two years (from the substantive examination request) to less than one year (from the PPH request). Similar to a PPH request under Indonesia’s existing PPH agreement for Japanese patents, applicants can file a PPH request based on a granted Korean patent after the Indonesian patent application is published and before the issuance of the first office action. Requests must be accompanied by the official fee of IDR 5 million (approx. USD 315) for filing a PPH request. The scope of cooperation between the DGIP and KIPO, as described by the other MOU, includes increasing the countries’ capacity, framework, protection, inspection, and utilization of intellectual property, as well as other cooperative activities. The countries will also exchange information on how to increase public awareness about the importance of protecting intellectual property. For more information on this new bilateral cooperation, or on any aspect of patent protection in Indonesia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +6221 2971 8088.
Read More