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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods