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

August 21, 2023

The Changing Nature of Fighting Fakes in Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Counterfeiting activities have been a global concern for many decades, and the problem has not yet gone away despite persistent efforts to suppress it. Significant strides have been made, but the most notable change is in the way that counterfeiters commit these infringing activities, which increasingly involve online technologies and channels.

In Southeast Asia, the counterfeit industry is worth hundreds of billions of US dollars and is expected to grow even further. In tracking the size of the global trade in counterfeit goods, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the EUIPO have noted that many countries in Southeast Asia are important producers of—and have traded heavily in—counterfeit goods. These countries have also traded heavily in counterfeit goods, and advanced technology has enabled these countries to produce more sophisticated goods and sell them in more advanced ways.

Consumer shift to online channels

One reason for the proliferation of these activities is the demand for online shopping platforms, which increased markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumer behavior in Southeast Asia has shifted in the past decade due to the growth of online sales channels, such as e-commerce and social media platforms. The pandemic hastened the switch to such channels and many consumers have kept using them ever since.

As merchants adapted to this trend, sellers of counterfeit goods also benefited greatly. Instead of having to be physically present in the marketplace, where they risked getting caught by the authorities, they can hide behind websites and sell counterfeit products from a stock of goods anywhere in the world. Counterfeit goods sellers have developed new ways to avoid detection and have improved their strategy for making their online profiles look more trustworthy and descriptions of their goods more convincing.

This move to online channels requires consumers to be more knowledgeable and discerning in determining whether a channel is official or deceptive. In the past, consumers could often find discrepancies between the descriptions of genuine goods on an official platform and counterfeit ones sold by infringers, mostly because the automated translation tools that infringers would use often produced poorly worded or erroneous translations. However, the tremendous development of free AI tools now threatens to make the task of distinguishing the real from the fake even harder for consumers.

Taking action

In the early years of e-commerce, most platforms did not have systems in place for dealing with counterfeit products. A brand owner who wished to act against a seller of counterfeit goods on an e-commerce platform usually had to contact the platform’s legal department directly, which was a long and drawn-out process. In recent years, however, some countries in Southeast Asia (e.g., Thailand and the Philippines) have entered into memorandums of understanding with online marketplaces and other stakeholders to combat online infringement, and this has helped to push those online marketplaces to develop mechanisms for dealing more efficiently with products that infringe IP rights.

Safeguarding measures usually comprise seller identity verification, automatic detection programs for counterfeit products, and consumer reporting systems. But even with these systems in place, it is frequently difficult for brand owners to find the sources of counterfeit products on a marketplace, as online marketplaces also have a responsibility to protect sellers’ personal data. As a result, brand owners typically need to invest more into uncovering the real identity of the infringer and the source of the counterfeit products. In addition, skillful counterfeit sellers open multiple accounts on many social platforms so that, when one of their stores is reported or shut down, they have many other stores that can continue to operate and sell. This creates more work for brand owners, who have to determine the related stores and pursue action against all of them.

Social media platforms are even more complicated than e-commerce platforms. Since registering an account can be done relatively quickly compared to on e-commerce platforms, social media accounts are not likely to be subject to identity verification checks, as most social media platforms need only an email or a mobile number to create an account.

One of the most worrying infringement schemes is the offering of counterfeit goods for sale on closed group chats that are accessible only to select groups of people. A seller can create a group chat and allow only their regular customers into the group to browse the fake merchandise. It is almost impossible for strangers to be accepted into these groups, which makes it difficult for the authorities and brand owners to investigate.

In some instances, sellers have been found to no longer stock counterfeit goods in destination countries in the region but offer the merchandise for sale from the manufacturing country instead. In these scenarios, it is harder for a brand owner to take action against the counterfeit goods in the destination country, since the infringer and the infringing goods are not present there. The counterfeit goods are no longer shipped in large containers to destination countries (e.g., those in Southeast Asia) but in small parcels. Customs departments therefore play an important role in dealing with these small parcels.

One relevant countermeasure that Thai Customs has implemented is its new system for customs recordation and seizure of counterfeit goods. In the past, for counterfeit goods to be seized at the border, it was necessary for brand owners to verify whether the goods were genuine or counterfeit, which could take time and be burdensome for some brand owners. However, the new system does not require verification from brand owners to confirm whether the goods at the border are genuine or counterfeit if there is no objection from the importer, exporter, or transit person and the brand owner has previously recorded the required information with Customs. It is believed that this new system will better address the small parcel situation.

Strategic concerns

Since infringers have changed the way that they operate, government authorities, brand owners, and other stakeholders need to sharpen their strategies to deal with infringing activities successfully. Aside from the elusive nature of the traders and rapid technological advancements, the platforms, languages, marketing methods, and laws in each country are different. The need for expert assistance in eliminating counterfeit products has by no means been reduced, but the required approach thereto has changed; brand owners need to ensure that they enlist the help of experts who fully understand these changes. For instance, while previous investigations into suspected infringement and counterfeiting operations would have been conducted only in physical marketplaces, today’s investigations of suspected infringement and counterfeiting operations require a much more up-to-date understanding of online counterfeiting trends to apprehend infringers.

To tackle the changing landscape of counterfeiting in Southeast Asia, a sound strategy needs to include all stakeholders involved. With sustained effort and a determination to adapt to prevailing trends, brand owners, authorities, and other stakeholders can remove counterfeit traders from the market to suppress and eliminate these infringing activities from this part of the world.

 

This article was first published by World Trademark Review, in December 2022. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More