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

January 22, 2022

The Fight against Counterfeits Online: Perspectives from an E-commerce Platform

Subscribe to Updates

In this guest piece, Andy Chua, senior vice president of the Lazada IP Rights (IPR) Protection Team, reveals how Southeast Asia’s leading e-commerce platform protects IP rights online while meeting rights holders’ needs for efficiency and responsiveness. This article, which was first published in World Trademark Review, is the first in a two-part series about trademark enforcement against online counterfeits.

 

It is no secret that online marketplaces have experienced rapid growth due to the digitalisation of retail and related fields. This rapid development has unfortunately also created an additional avenue for bad actors to distribute counterfeit goods to largely unaware consumers—thereby causing losses and reputational damage to brands associated with these counterfeit products. As Southeast Asia’s leading e-commerce platform, Lazada has long prioritised protecting the IP rights of brands and sellers on our platforms and has invested in safeguards that ensure consumers can shop and transact with confidence on Lazada.

In March 2019, Lazada established the IPR Protection Team, which is charged with the mission of developing a comprehensive IP rights protection programme at Lazada. To our knowledge, Lazada is the only e-commerce company in Southeast Asia with a team dedicated to addressing rights holders’ IP concerns. Beyond the initial setting up of the dedicated IPR Protection Team, Lazada continues to invest significantly in human resources and technology infrastructure to meet rights holders’ needs for efficiency and responsiveness. Presently, more than 30 people are employed full time and assigned to this effort.

The IP rights protection programme at Lazada comprises four core components:

  • a strict IP rights policy;
  • merchant education;
  • technology-driven governance; and
  • stakeholder collaboration.

Strict IP rights policy

On each of the six Lazada country platforms, the IP rights policy is publicly available in the respective local language and clearly sets out the types of listings that would violate Lazada’s IP policy. Generally, the policy prohibits the listing of IP-infringing products or services or using trademark or copyright-infringing content within a listing.

Merchant education

Lazada strongly supports merchants to grow their businesses on the platform in a fair and sustainable way that safeguards consumer interests and the rights of other sellers. This is why Lazada invests in merchant education to maintain rigorous platform governance and ensure that all merchants are schooled in lawful practices and made well aware of the platform’s terms and conditions. This education is an essential part of the merchant onboarding process.

All new merchants undergo a series of educational modules through the web-based Lazada University. Through these modules, merchants learn about Lazada’s platform policies, including those relating to IP rights. Merchants are informed of the consequences of noncompliance, which include escalating penalties that could lead to account suspension and/or termination.

Technology-driven governance – the IPP Platform

As of June 2019, Lazada sites have been integrated within a web-based portal, known as the IPP Platform. This allows rights holders to register enforcement accounts, submit takedown requests and monitor the status of the takedown requests led across all six markets in which Lazada operates. The IPP Platform also serves as a repository for IP rights documents. Rights holders only need to upload the necessary documents once, when they submit the first takedown request. Thereafter, their information and IP rights documents are logged in the system and ready for use in relation to future (relevant) takedown requests.

The IPP Platform is a technological tool developed by the Alibaba Group and is highly beneficial in driving efficiencies around the processing of takedown requests by rights holders. While the IPP Platform also supports the submission of takedown requests for other e-commerce platforms within the Alibaba Group (ie, 1688.com, Alibaba.com, AliExpress, Taobao, Tmall and Tmall Global), the review and processing of takedown requests directed at listings on Lazada platforms is carried out independently by the Lazada IPR Protection Team and in accordance with Lazada’s own set of review and processing guidelines.

Through the IPP Platform, Lazada is able to process takedown requests expeditiously. From July 2020 to June 2021, 98% of takedown requests were processed within three business days. The number of takedown requests processed increased by 22%, while the average processing time per takedown request decreased by 31% year on year.

Stakeholder collaboration

Lazada understands that effective IP protection requires targeting the physical sources of counterfeit goods, not just the online platforms where they are sold. This is why Lazada is a strong supporter and collaborator when it comes to working with rights holders and local law enforcement agencies in online investigations and enforcement actions all the way up the supply chain—sending a clear message to manufacturers and distributors of counterfeit products that Lazada platforms are off limits.

From July 2020 to June 2021, Lazada partnered with multiple rights holders, trade associations and local law enforcement agencies on several online enforcement actions, which led to almost 100,000 counterfeit goods being seized.

Notably, an enforcement raid in Thailand in May 2021—which yielded more than 82,000 counterfeit Panasonic batteries – was the rights holder’s largest seizure in Southeast Asia to date. The batteries were intended for sale on various e-commerce platforms.

Lazada also actively participated in Operation Pangea XIV—a global enforcement operation coordinated by INTERPOL from 18 to 25 May 2021, targeting the sale of counterfeit and illicit medicines and medical products. The operation involved police, customs and health regulatory authorities from 92 countries. Through Lazada’s collaboration with INTERPOL and the relevant local authorities, enforcement actions in the Philippines led to the seizure of various counterfeit health supplements.

As well as collaborating with law enforcement and rights holders, at Lazada we also organise our own events to engage stakeholders in discussions about IP protection. Rights holders can provide feedback directly to Lazada, share best practices and learn about how Lazada protects their IP rights. As an example, Lazada held a hybrid IP protection workshop on 3 March 2021, where guest speakers included representatives from Under Armour, Eli Lily and the Pharmaceutical Security Institute. The event was attended by more than 70 people and received positive reviews from many of the attendees.

Building a platform for everyone

A robust platform IP rights protection programme benefits everyone, including SMEs. During Lazada’s celebration of World IP Day this year, one of Lazada’s SME merchants, Adrian Goh, manager of the White Magic store on Lazada, spoke about how Lazada’s efforts in creating a safe and secure environment help businesses to thrive.

“After we reported the counterfeit products and got them progressively removed, we actually saw a significant increase in our sales, somewhere close to 30%,” Goh said, “because when the counterfeits are removed, the buyers will go back to buying the original brands”.

As illustrated by Goh, having clear and stringent IP policies in place, which are clearly communicated to users, combined with an efficient reporting and takedown system, are the key building blocks of a robust IP rights protection programme that will benefit businesses. In addition, an overall readiness to review and develop new processes or solutions through close collaboration with rights holders, policymakers, law enforcement agencies, industry associations and even other platforms will be critical in addressing and overcoming complex and pervasive issues, making the online world a safer place to transact for all.

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More