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​ 

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
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction