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 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It