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

December 6, 2018

Successful Online-to-Offline Enforcement Action Leads to Huge Seizure of Counterfeits

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The ease with which counterfeiters are able to hide their identity online, simply by hiding behind a username, can often complicate the protection of IP rights. However, if an infringer’s anonymity can be pierced, it can yield huge seizures of counterfeit products, make great strides in protecting valuable intellectual assets, and close major distribution channels.

In a recent example, Panasonic Corporation successfully uncovered the identity of a Chinese infringer operating in Thailand, raided the infringer’s physical location, and seized more than 30,000 counterfeit Panasonic products (primarily bat- teries). The raid has had a deep impact on the market, disrupting the distribution channels for these counterfeit goods, removing the fake goods from online marketplaces, and protecting the Thai public from dangerous counterfeit goods.

Identifying the Online Infringers

Many e-commerce websites are open to anyone wanting to sell their goods, creating a platform for fake goods to be easily offered for sale by infringers. Using anonymous usernames, infringers can create store pages containing enticing and convincing statements, luring end-users into believing that the cheaper goods are genuine.

In this case, three such pages were found to be selling counterfeit Panasonic batteries on one of Thailand’s most popular online marketplaces. After contacting the online marketplace operators to request that the advertisements be taken down, two pages closed but one remained active.

An in-depth private investigation into the remaining online shop uncovered that all three pages were owned by the same entity—a Chinese national with two houses in Bangkok, from which he actively sold various types of fake Panasonic batteries in large quantities.

Warning Letter vs. Raid Action   

Sending a warning letter is usually the preferred enforce- ment action against small-scale online infringers. If the dispute can be settled after sending the warning letter, this option is more time- and cost-efficient than other legal actions.    

However, infringers with large inventories may be less receptive to this approach, either ignoring warning letters entirely, or only ceasing sales temporarily. Either way, infringers with large inventories are very likely to continue sales eventually, as they need to clear out their stock.   

In addition, attempts to negotiate with foreign nationals operating in Thailand often backfire, as they are not usually permanently established in Thailand. It is common for such infringers to simply move to another location upon receipt of a warning letter.   

In this instance the targeted infringer clearly had a large stock, was a foreign national, and was quite cautious in his activities, using the marketplace platform to hide his identity and not disclosing his name on his shop pages. A warning letter was therefore considered to pose a high risk, and a strong raid action against the target in order to seize the fake goods was considered a better solution. In addition, such action would penalize the infringers and spread the message that Panasonic takes serious legal action against infringers in order to protect its consumers.    

A criminal raid action was therefore initiated at the identified houses in order to seize the products.

Search and Seizure    

Based on investigation reports, strong evidence, and coordination with a police raid team, the court granted search warrants to gain entry to the suspect’s houses. No counterfeit Panasonic products were found at the first house, although other branded mobile phone chargers, earphones, mobile phone holders, and various unbranded products were on site. The police seized those goods for non-payment of import taxes.
The suspect and one of his staff (a Thai citizen) were found inside the second house, and they granted entry when presented with the search warrant. The search confirmed that the residential property was being used as a warehouse for commercial purposes. Batteries, chargers, watches, and other products were stored in every room, including the living room, kitchen, bedrooms, and even bathrooms. A large number of fake Panasonic products were found, along with other branded products.    

The police seized more than 30,000 counterfeit Panasonic products, including stickers labeled “Panasonic” that were obviously going to be attached to infringing products before sale. 

Arresting the Counterfeiters

The police filed charges of trademark infringement and importation tax evasion under the Customs Act against both people found in the house. In respect of the stickers labelled “Panasonic,” intended to convince the public that counterfeit goods were genuine Panasonic goods, the infringers were charged with using a mark without authorization in order to mislead the public, under the Thai Penal Code. In addition, the foreign national was charged with working without a work permit under Thailand’s immigration regime.   

This successful raid action prevented the distribution of fake goods to end-users, and will serve as a deterrent to other potential infringers in the market in accordance with Panasonic’s anticounterfeiting and customer protection policies.    

This raid is a prime example of the level of commitment necessary in order to protect Thai consumers from dangerous counterfeit products. Actions like these are rarely a one-off, and typically form part of a broader anticounterfeiting campaign. In that context, raids can also help to identify the sources of fake batteries being distributed in Thailand, and ultimately eliminate the counterfeit products once and for all.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2022
Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the
Read More
September 30, 2022
In keeping with the government’s strong focus on consumer protection in recent years, Cambodia’s consumer protection authority issued a notice on consumer product labeling on September 23, 2022. The notice from the General Department of Consumer Protection, Competition, and Fraud Repression (CCF) provides clarifications on labeling rules for general consumer products, goods, and services. The most significant clarification is that both locally produced and imported products, goods, and services must have a Khmer-language label or attach a product description in Khmer language. Imports may use a sticker with Khmer language as long as the minimum labeling requirements are met. The notice announces a transition period for companies to amend their labeling, allowing them to make changes to the labeling until December 31, 2022. According to the notice, the CCF will investigate and take enforcement measures starting January 1, 2023. This likely signals a major increase in enforcement efforts throughout 2023. Labeling Rules The CCF notice gives instructions on product labeling rules. In Cambodia, “product” refers to general products, goods, and services on the Cambodian market. Product-specific labeling regulations (e.g., for food products) overrule the requirements for these general products. The CCF notice provides the following instructions: All products on the market must have a label, or attach a product description, using Khmer language. Imported products that do not have a Khmer-language label printed on the packaging should provide a product description in Khmer. Companies can attach the necessary information or apply a sticker to the product. Trademarks on the products may use a foreign language but must be in line with the relevant local trademark registration. Foreign-language or different labeling is only permitted if authorized by the regulator, or by regulations that apply to a specific type of product. The label or product description must use an appropriate font
Read More
September 15, 2022
In the course of our work, we often hear about consumers in Thailand lodging complaints with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) about problems with a purchased product or service. The OCPB is a government agency attached to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its main duties are to protect consumers in Thailand with respect to product advertising, product labeling, and contracts, and to handle consumer complaints. However, there are exceptions to the types of consumer complaints that the OCPB can handle. This is because some consumer complaints must by law be handled by certain specialized agencies. Examples of these exceptions include consumer complaints relating to: health products (food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, household dangerous substances, and narcotics); medical services; insurance; pricing of consumer products; condominium juristic person; public land; rail, water, and air transportation; tourism; education; banking and finance; telecommunications; and electricity and water consumption. Procedure When a consumer complaint that the office can accept comes to the OCPB, the officers first consider whether the business operator has violated any laws, in which case the relevant authorities, such as the police, should handle the matter. When the officers consider it appropriate, they may ask the parties to mediate the dispute. Complaints in Bangkok are mediated by officers at the Bangkok OCPB. For complaints lodged in other provinces, the governors of the provinces may assign officers or agencies under their supervision to mediate. The OCPB can mediate twice within 90 days. If the parties still want to continue with the mediation, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board (CPB)—the body that directs the OCPB—will then conduct two more mediation sessions within 90 days. If a resolution is still not reached, the subcommittee can conduct one additional mediation session before declaring the mediation failed and ending the complaint
Read More
January 12, 2022
The popularity of the franchise business model has grown rapidly in mainland Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Although these countries have not yet enacted franchising-specific laws, certain features of each country’s regulatory regime impact franchising. As such, well-prepared franchise business operations have comfortably adapted to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and local at the same time, may offer retail entrepreneurs a solution in their quest to meet the challenges of the new retail economic realities. This article explains the legal frameworks that impact the franchise business model in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. For each country, this article discusses relevant regulatory considerations for franchise agreements, how to protect intellectual property rights, and judicial and arbitral procedures for resolving disputes that might arise between a franchisor and a franchisee. The full article can be downloaded through the button below.   © 2021. Originally published in the Franchise Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, Fall 2021, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.
Read More