Developing a business strategy to deter counterfeiters
Through a thoughtful, targeted approach involving the marketing, strategic, and legal arms of the business, brands can help reduce the impact of counterfeiting.
October 23, 2013 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It is hard to underestimate the impact of counterfeiting – both in reputation and in dollars – in today's global marketplace. Analysts estimate that a full 25 percent of global Internet commerce today involves counterfeit products. No longer relegated only to flea markets and copy-cat websites, counterfeits permeate virtually every retail source, including legitimate full-price retailers. Counterfeit parts are also known to find their way into name-brand merchandise, putting more than consumer confidence at risk. The magnitude of the counterfeiting problem is staggering, is experienced across virtually every industry, and poses not just a risk to corporate profits but a very real risk to consumer health and safety.
Although no brand is 100 percent immune from the impact of counterfeiting, the extent of loss your brand suffers at the hand of counterfeiters will depend on a number of factors, including how you interact with the global marketplace and the checks put into place that make it possible to track and evaluate the impact and source of counterfeiting. The companies that are most successful at anti-counterfeiting initiatives make sure their anti-counterfeiting efforts are enterprise-level undertakings, coordinated across business units. From a cultural standpoint, companies that view counterfeiters as a competitive and not just legal concern have the best chance at minimizing the impact on the bottom line.
Moreover, as with any business challenge, the best defense to counterfeiters is a good offense. Brands that proactively engage in strategies that deter counterfeiting and minimize the impact of counterfeiting, versus simply reacting to problems as they arise, will be more successful than those whose approach more closely resembles a game of whack-a-mole.
The first step in controlling the threat posed by counterfeiting is to very carefully select the geographic markets in which you sell your products. Although emerging markets present opportunities in terms of market growth, those possible gains need to be measured against the risk of putting your products into countries that lack adequate intellectual property controls, and/or are rooted in cultures that do not value innovation. For example, a recent study co-published by the European Chamber of Commerce, KPMG, Mayer Brown JSM, and market research firm TNS, surveyed 800 respondents in Hong Kong and Macau as to their purchasing practices. 73 percent of the respondents in these jurisdictions knowingly had purchased (and admitted to purchasing) counterfeit products, illustrating the high degree of high social acceptance of trading in and using counterfeit products in some jurisdictions.
Second, if you do enter geographic markets known for lax intellectual property protection and tolerance for counterfeiters, be sure to obtain timely and adequate protection for your trademarks. Even in countries where it can be difficult to enforce such rights, having the official documentation is often required to simply bring an action. Moreover, many emerging markets are first-to-file trademark jurisdictions, where failing to be the first to file for your trademark may preclude you from entering the market at all, if a bad-actor happens to register your mark first.
Third, consider carefully before outsourcing manufacturing or obtaining components from overseas. Although sourcing from abroad can appear to be a short-term cost saver in terms of cheaper labor, the long-term costs to reputation and sales may be higher than manufacturing domestically if it provides an avenue for counterfeiters to access your product and insert pirated versions into the supply chain. If you must outsource manufacturing, implement marking and serialization strategies that help you track the authenticity and flow of your products. New technologies are available that makes these indicators impossible to detect with the naked eye and thus difficult to replicate.
A fourth step to making your products less attractive to counterfeiters is to engage and educate your consumers to seek out authentic products. Brands that make counterfeit detection/authentication part of the brand experience can decrease the consumer appetite for fake products. For example, Kate Spade was once a brand known almost as much for its prevalence at “purse parties,” sales events hosted at suburban residences that feature counterfeit merchandise, as for its vividly-colored handbags. The brand now has made efforts to engage its customers in product authentication, including a section on its website that explains how to determine whether a product is real, and listing venues in which one cannot purchase a real Kate Spade product — including purse parties and mall kiosks.
Finally, brands need to look at purchasers of counterfeits as a market segment that can be captured. Consumers today want to buy genuine products, cheaply, now. It is estimated that at least a third of those who purchase counterfeit products are legitimate customers who simply were duped – particularly in the online context. The challenge for legal and marketing departments is to figure out how to work together to cut down on rogue sites that are diverting customers – through a combination of search engine optimization strategies and targeted enforcement.
Through a thoughtful, targeted approach involving the marketing, strategic, and legal arms of the business, brands can help reduce the impact of counterfeiting on both the reputation of the brand, and on the bottom line.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250