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​ 

September 23, 2022
When Vietnam’s newly amended IP Law takes effect on January 1, 2023, bringing the country’s IP regime more in line with international standards, some of the most noticeable impacts will be in the copyright area. Some important changes in the amended IP Law are summarized below. Reproduction Reproduction is defined as the act of copying, in whole or in part, a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation by any means and in any form. Therefore, copying only a part of a copyrighted work would still be considered an act of reproduction and could be subject to relevant sanctions. Distribution Rights It is clearly provided that distribution rights are limited to products in a tangible form. Therefore, the act of making a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation available in digital form (through the internet, for example) will not be considered an act of distribution. Exceptions to Copyright Infringement The amended IP Law widens the scope of exceptions to copyright infringement. Exceptions have been added for, among others, persons with disabilities. The reproduction, performance, and communication of a work in an accessible format (when the persons involved have legal access to the original or copy of the work) is permitted. In addition, exceptions (including distribution rights) are added for not-for-profit organizations authorized by the government to operate in a related field. It is also notable that “works of art” and “the collection and anthologizing of works” are excluded from the permissible exceptions. Enforcement Against Infringements There are significant changes in the approach to identifying acts of copyright and related rights infringement. Specifically, instead of listing all the possible acts of infringement, the amended IP Law states that any acts violating moral rights and economic rights that do not fall under the stipulated copyright or
Read More
September 6, 2022
The Thai Customs Department has issued a notification that changes the customs recordation system and the customs procedures for the seizure of counterfeit and pirated goods. Customs Notification on the Export, Import, and Transit of Trademark- and Copyright-Infringing Goods was published in the Government Gazette on August 4, 2022, and had gone into effect on July 29, 2022. Previously, trademark owners seeking customs recordation needed to record the relevant information with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), but under the new notification, both trademark and copyright owners can record their intellectual property information with the Customs Department directly. The system and procedures established by the notification are detailed below. Customs Recordation System Trademark or copyright owners (or their representatives) may file an application specifying any information that customs officers can use to verify the authenticity of goods being exported, imported, or transited through Thailand. The application can be filed with the Enforcement Division of the Customs Department. The information in the application will be kept for three years from the date of receipt (or for the remaining period of trademark or copyright protection, if less than three years). Renewals can be filed no later than 30 days before the expiry date. Any changes in information must be made with the Enforcement Division. Ex Officio Impounding Procedure When customs officers suspect any goods of infringing intellectual property rights according to the information recorded, they will impound the goods and inform the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent) as well as the trademark or copyright owner. If the customs officers cannot contact the exporter, importer, or transit person (or agent), or if this person does not oppose the action within three days, the impounded items will be deemed infringing goods. Importantly, if the exporter, importer, or transit person admits that
Read More
July 29, 2022
On July 1, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce issued Notification No. 44/2022, which specifies forms for filings under the 2019 Trademark Law. While the “soft opening” period of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) is approaching two years and the date of the full opening is still undetermined, this new notification is a substantial development and can be considered progress pointing toward full implementation of the Trademark Law. The notification came with an annex describing the following 19 forms (issued in both Myanmar and English language on the IPD website): Application for Registration of a Mark Appointment of a Representative Request for Reinstatement of an Application Request for Correction of an Application Request for Withdrawal of an Application Request to Limit the List of Goods or Services in an Application Request to Divide an Application Opposition to Registration of a Mark Request to Issue Certified Copies of a Registration Certificate Request for Amendment of Registration of a Mark Request for Renewal of Registration of a Mark Request for Recordation of Transfer of Registration of a Mark Request for Recordation of a License of a Registered Mark Request to Cancel Recordation of a License of a Registered Mark Request for Invalidation of a Registered Mark Request for Cancellation of a Registered Mark Request to Change the Representative Request for Time Extension Application for Appeal The annex provides detailed requirements for each form corresponding to a particular request described in the Trademark Law. However, use and submission of the forms will need to wait for further procedural guidance from the IPD. Now that the authority has issued the forms for matters under the Trademark Law, the next step will be the announcement of fees for each action, after which the IPD will be ready to enter the second phase of its soft
Read More
July 20, 2022
What does “digital health” include within each jurisdiction? Thailand: For the most part, the idea of “digital health” or “telemedicine” has generally fallen within the area of medical device regulation in Thailand. The normal sort of digital health components you would think of—like software and device accessories for diagnosis, monitoring, prevention, or treatment of illnesses—would fall into medical device classification, so long as they do not achieve their intended function by immunological, metabolic, or pharmacological means. The “digital health” devices you commonly think of, like mobile medical apps, wearable technologies and software, fall mainly within this definition. After the last update to the Medical Device Act in 2008, Thailand next looked at digital health in 2019, with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)—which is largely aligned with GDPR principles—and the Cybersecurity Act. These deal with important issues arising from “digital health” and “telemedicine” like personal data protection, consent to use and consent to transfer data, and privacy. Vietnam: Similarly, in Vietnam, while there’s not a clear definition of “digital health” in the law, it is understood to include various types of medical devices, software, and online services used for healthcare purposes—including diagnosis and treatment as well as medical records and telemedicine. There’s no law on digital health, per se, but many of these areas are covered by separate circulars issued by the Ministry of Health. There’s a circular (referred to as “Circular 49”) from late 2017 on telemedicine, for example, that actually uses the term “telemedicine” to identify the industry and sets out licensing and technical requirements. Indicators such as this show that Vietnam is definitely embracing the concept. Indonesia: In Indonesia, there is also no precise definition of “digital health.” Digital health is regulated under several laws and regulations, such as provisions concerning medical devices under the health
Read More