USD 467 billion -that’s how much the counterfeit goods were worth in global trade in the year 2021. That is 2.3% of all worldwide imports.[i] These alarming statistics draw attention to the threat that counterfeit and pirated products pose to economies, consumers, and the integrity of supply chains globally. The ramifications of this illicit trade are profound: lost revenue, brand erosion, and danger to consumer safety.
So, what does that mean for your businesses?
It means that fakes are everywhere. From faux Louis Vuitton bags to bootleg pharmaceuticals. And if your brand is even mildly successful, someone somewhere is trying to rip it off. For businesses, counterfeit products erode brand value, siphon revenues and undermine consumer trust.
Consumers on the other hand, face risks ranging from substandard quality to health hazards specially when counterfeit goods infiltrate sectors like pharmaceutical, automotive parts and electronics.
To combat this menace, border enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights has emerged as a tool for brand protection. It enables authorities to stop counterfeit products at the very threshold before they even enter the market. And as we often hear; prevention is better than cure. That principle is especially relevant here. It is far more cost-effective for a brand to record its IP rights with Customs and prevent counterfeit entry than to chase fakes through litigation after the fact. Famous Brands like Nike, Louis Vuitton, and Apple have benefited from strong border IP enforcement regimes in countries like the US and EU, with many fakes being stopped at the border.
This article explores how countries around the world are addressing the threat of counterfeit trade through customs-based intellectual property enforcement. It provides a comparative overview of the legal frameworks and border control mechanisms adopted by jurisdictions such as the USA, India, the EU, UK, UAE, Japan, Kenya, and Australia highlighting how these systems function.
What exactly is border enforcement of IP Rights?
Border enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights refers to the measures taken by customs authorities to intercept and seize infringing goods at the point of import or export. This includes counterfeit luxury goods, apparel, fake electronics, and pirated content. For brand owners, it’s the front line of defense to protect brand value, stop knock-offs, and ensure market integrity.
Globally, the concept of customs/border enforcement as an intellectual property protection tool gained traction with the rise of international trade and the parallel increase in transnational counterfeiting. Its legal formalization came with the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)[ii] under the WTO in 1995, which obligated member states to implement effective border measures. TRIPS recognized that border enforcement is not just a trade regulation issue but a vital mechanism for safeguarding IP in a globalized economy. This led many jurisdictions including the European Union, the United States, and other members to develop structured customs recordal systems, enabling IP owners to work directly with customs authorities to monitor imports and exports.
In essence, border enforcement allows IP owners to partner with customs authorities as vigilant gatekeepers. The brand owner typically files a customs recordal providing details of their IP rights and genuine products. Customs then uses this information to spot and stop suspected fakes at ports, airports, and land checkpoints.
Several countries today are prioritizing border IP enforcement as a core tool against counterfeiting. However, not all regimes are equally strong or efficient. To help businesses navigate this landscape, governments and international organizations regularly publish watch lists and enforcement benchmarks.
One of the most influential of these is the Special 301 Report by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).[iii] This report, released annually, identifies countries that fail to offer adequate IP protection or enforcement. Nations placed on the Watch List or Priority Watch List may face diplomatic scrutiny or trade-related consequences. For rights holders, these reports offer early warning indicators pinpointing jurisdictions where vigilance is crucial and customs enforcement may be weak or inconsistent.
In the 2024 Special 301 Report, countries like India, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia remained on the Watch List due to challenges such as procedural delays, limited customs training, and inconsistent enforcement.
A Comparative Look: Border IP Enforcement in various jurisdictions:
India:
India has a detailed legal framework that empowers Customs to tackle this. The backbone is the Customs Act, 1962, supplemented by the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (“IPR Enforcement Rules”)[iv]. Together, these provide the legal basis and procedure for Indian Customs to detain counterfeit or infringing goods at the border.
Under the current regime, trademarks, copyrights, designs, and geographical indications can be recorded with Indian Customs for border enforcement. However, patents are expressly excluded from the scope of the IPR Enforcement Rules as they are extremely technical and cannot be enforced through customs action unlike in some other jurisdictions.
To activate border enforcement in India, rights holders must file a notice under Rule 3 of the IPR Enforcement Rules via the Indian Customs Portal, along with relevant certificates, product images, and data. The recordal is valid for five years and is renewable. Applicants are also required to execute a bond and indemnity undertaking, agreeing to bear costs associated with detention and destruction, and must inform Customs of any changes to their IP rights. If Customs suspects infringement, it may detain the shipment and notify the rights holder. Upon confirmation, counterfeit goods are destroyed.
For instance, in one of India’s largest counterfeit shoe seizures, Chennai Customs intercepted a container from China carrying 12,000 fake Nike, Adidas, and Reebok shoes worth ₹3.5 crore. The goods were mis-declared, but alert customs officers uncovered the concealed fakes, leading to their destruction following brand verification.
United States:
In the U.S., Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a very active player in IP enforcement. Brand owners can record their U.S. trademarks and copyrights with CBP (for a modest fee per registration) through an online IPR recordation system. Once recorded, CBP officers target shipments at ports of entry and seize goods that infringe the recorded IP rights.
CBP conducts several seizures annually, ranging from fake luxury goods and apparel to counterfeit electronics and medicines. They state that nearly 90% of all CBP IPR seizures were coming from China and Hong Kong in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, reflecting the global nature of the counterfeit trade.[v]
European Union:
The European Union maintains a centralized and harmonized system for border enforcement of IP rights under Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, which replaced the older Regulation 1383/2003. Rights holders can submit a single Application for Action (AFA) to the customs authority of any EU Member State, which then becomes effective across all 27 Member States. This system significantly reduces administrative burden for brand owners with cross-border interests.
The AFA must include evidence of valid IP rights, product identifiers, known counterfeits, and contact details. Once granted, customs officers across the EU are empowered to detain goods ex officio or based on the AFA, notify the rights holder, and allow time to initiate legal action or confirm the infringing nature of the goods.
In 2022, EU customs detained over 86 million items suspected of infringing IP rights, with an estimated retail value exceeding €2 billion[vi]. The majority of these goods originated from China and Hong Kong, and the most affected sectors included packaging, toys, and luxury accessories. The EU also allows simplified destruction procedures, where the importer does not contest the seizure, streamlining enforcement.[vii]
Japan:
Japan boasts one of the most comprehensive border IP enforcement regimes. Rights holders may file an “Application for Suspension” with the Japanese Customs, requesting that officials detain goods suspected of infringing various forms of intellectual property at the point of import or export.[viii]
Customs Officers can act against infringements of trademarks, copyrights, designs, patents, utility models and even plant breeders rights which protect the plant breeders over new and distinct plant varieties. In addition, Japan permits enforcement against unregistered well-known marks under its Unfair Competition Prevention Act, providing protection even where formal registration is lacking.
Japan’s customs authorities are known for their proactive and thorough enforcement. Customs can act ex officio, initiating suspensions based on their own detection of suspicious shipments. According to the Ministry of Finance via their “Status of Suspension of Intellectual Property Infringing Goods at Customs in the First Half of 2024,” the number of import suspension cases in the first half of 2024 was 18,153, which is an increase from 15,616 in the first half of last year, and the highest number ever.
United Kingdom:
Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom now operates a border IP enforcement system that closely mirrors the pre-existing EU model but is fully managed by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and UK Border Force. Rights holders must file a UK-specific Application for Action (AFA), which enables enforcement at all UK ports and border entry points.
Customs officers are authorized to detain suspect goods either on the basis of the application or ex officio, and notify both the rights holder and importer. Like the EU, the UK follows a simplified procedure for destruction unless the importer objects.
In recent years, UK authorities have stepped up IP enforcement amid rising concerns over counterfeit goods entering via small parcels and e-commerce channels. In 2023, UK Border Force seized almost one million items of counterfeit goods worth nearly £200 million, with fake electricals targeted in the run-up to Christmas.[ix] The country remains a high-risk destination market due to strong consumer demand and complex supply chains, making customs enforcement an essential tool.[x]
United Arab Emirates(UAE):
The UAE has developed a customs IP enforcement framework spanning its key emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, etc.). Each emirate’s customs department operates a trademark recordation system that allows brand owners to register their marks for border protection. Once a mark is recorded, customs officers gain access to the brand details and can adopt an ex officio enforcement approach, meaning they actively watch for and seize counterfeit shipments without needing a court injunction.
This proactive stance has made UAE ports much tougher gateways for counterfeit goods. Recordals remain valid as long as the trademark registration is in force, and they cover goods in transit through free zones as well.[xi]
Kenya:
Kenya has recently implemented one of Africa’s most aggressive border IP enforcement regimes. In 2022, the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) launched a mandatory IPR recordation system for all imports. This requires that any trademarks, copyrights, trade names or other IP rights associated with goods entering Kenya be recorded in an online database (the AIMS system). Customs and ACA inspectors use this database at ports of entry to screen incoming shipments and proactively seize any counterfeit goods identified . In fact, goods bearing protected IP that is not recorded will simply be stopped at the border by default. Kenyan customs officials have been given ex officio powers to interdict fake products in transit, and several high-profile seizures (such as counterfeit electronics and pharmaceuticals) have occurred since the system went live. [xii]
Australia:
Australia employs a Notice of Objection system to empower its border force in IP enforcement. A trademark owner (or authorized user) may file a Notice of Objection with the Australian Border Force (ABF), after which customs officers are authorized to seize imported goods that infringe the recorded trademark. The scheme currently covers trademarks as well as a few other rights. Once a notice is in place (valid for renewable periods of four years), customs will detain goods suspected to be “substantially identical or deceptively similar” to the recorded IP and notify both the importer and the IP owner. The IP owner then has a short window (typically 10 working days) to decide on court action, failing which the goods may be released. While Australian law permits customs to act on their own initiative to hold suspect shipments, in practice most interventions happen when a Notice of Objection has been lodged.[xiii]
Conclusion: A Proactive Tool for Brand Protection
In a world where counterfeiters operate across borders, customs enforcement is a strategic necessity for brand owners. A customs recordal lets you stop fake products at the port of entry. This not only prevents immediate revenue loss and protects unsuspecting consumers but also forces counterfeiters to understand the risks and costs if their shipment gets seized and destroyed.
For businesses, the takeaway is clear, engage with the customs enforcement mechanism as part of your overall IP strategy. It is an efficient remedy, especially in a vast consumer market like India where preventing entry of fakes can save enormous enforcement costs downstream. By blocking infringing imports, one not only protects revenue and consumers but also contributes to a healthier marketplace for all. The law is in place and the tools are available; it falls on rights holders to use them. In the words of many IP enforcement experts: Brands that invest in this proactive measure will find India’s borders are not just entry points, but effective checkpoints guarding their intellectual property.
In today’s globalized economy, your products will likely cross many borders, making customs enforcement a cornerstone of your IP strategy ensures that at each of those borders, knockoffs are kept at the gate and your bands integrity marches through unscathed.
[i] Global trade in fake goods reached USD 467 billion, posing risks to consumer safety and compromising intellectual property- OECD
[ii] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights arts. 51–60, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
[iii] 2024 Special 301 Report | United States Trade Representative
[iv] Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (India), (Notification No. 47/2007-Cus. (N.T.), dated 8-5-2007 ]
[v] The Truth Behind Counterfeits | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
[vi] 86 million fake items with a value of more than EUR 2 billion detained in the EU in 2022 - EUIPO
[vii] Application for action (eAFA) - EUIPO
[viii] Japan -IPR Border Enforcement
[ix] Border Force crackdown on Christmas counterfeit electrical goods - GOV.UK
[x] Apply for action to protect your intellectual property rights - GOV.UK
[xi] Dubai Customs, Intellectual Property Rights, https://www.dubaicustoms.gov.ae.
[xii] KENYA Intellectual Property Rights Recordation - Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA)
[xiii] Australian Border Force
Authors:
Rahul Bagga, Partner
Krupa Vyas, Associate
Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.