In this increasingly consumer and services-led economy, brands have been in the ascendancy. They can represent tools to buy and secure customer loyalty and values such as familiarity, quality, dependability and lifestyle. A side effect of creating a globally recognised brand (or any successful product) is that others will try to copy it. Global brandlords can look to trademark, passing off, unfair competition, copyright and design right and analogous laws in various jurisdictions for legal armoury with which to keep out invaders. But they will have to look closely at the exact provisions of the relevant local laws.

As global trade has increased, so has a desire – at least among traders in developed countries – for a level of uniformity of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection. Among various multinational treaties, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips) between members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is perhaps the most wide-ranging. There are currently 146 WTO members representing more than 90% of the world's trade.

Taking effect from 1 January 1995, Trips was intended to create a level playing field to facilitate trade and development for all member states. Deadlines were set for members to enact legislation to implement its provisions. 'Least developed countries' are to comply by 2006, although in the November 2001 Doha Declaration, WTO ministers gave such countries until 2016 to comply with respect to pharmaceutical products.

Trips has more teeth than some consensual regimes – members may bring disputes about implementation of Trips obligations against other members at the WTO's Disputes Settlement Body. Members have already brought more than 20 cases.

Trips' draftsmen recognised that it was difficult to prescribe uniform rules throughout and that members should be left with discretion on some issues. For example, Trips leaves member states free to legislate on the issue of exhaustion of rights. Although the issue across Europe at least in relation to trademarks appears relatively settled (following the Silhouette and Sebago cases), the position in other WTO member states is different. This has a significant effect on brand owners. Much will depend on whether they can be taken to have consented to their products being put on a particular market.

Arguably, it is inevitable – and indeed desirable – for national courts to decide issues differently in accordance with local circumstances. For example, this will occur in trademark, passing off or unfair competition infringement matters where a brand's reputation and consumer perception in a certain territory is in issue.

Thus a luxury brand owner may find it difficult to mount a successful passing off action in Hong Kong in relation to sale of cheap products made to look like genuine branded items on sale on a market stall. Given the relative prevalence of such items, it may be difficult to show that a Hong Kong customer actually believed the item was genuine.

Even in the EU where laws are harmonised to a greater degree than under Trips, differences in interpretation of ostensibly the same law arise between member states. For example, the issue raised by the English court's view that use of the Arsenal Football Club logo on fan hats and scarves sold by a trader outside the football ground was not use of the logo as a trademark is arguably still uncertain, despite a decision from the European Court of Justice.

No matter how compliant a member state's laws are with Trips or other international obligations, the practical benefit of such laws to IPR holders depends on how effectively they are enforced. It is recognised that the manufacture of counterfeit branded products is an issue in the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Generally PRC law now does prohibit such activity and a local court order may be obtained. However, to enforce such an order, the brand owner needs local authority support and co-operation. At times, there are also significant socio-economic issues to consider, for example, the effect of closing down a garment factory that may be a significant local employer.

Is it appropriate to insist on compliance with Trips by less developed countries? If the justification for granting a monopoly through IPRs is that it may encourage innovation and help create wealth and other benefits, unless the country in question is sufficiently developed to reap those benefits, the reasoning can appear weak.

In December last year, the Government's Intellectual Property Rights Commission published a report on Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. In its foreword Mr Justice Laddie said: "…the developed world has the national economic strength and legal mechanisms to overcome [any problems caused by IPRs]. Insofar as their benefits outweigh their disadvantages, the developed world has the wealth and infrastructure to take advantage of the opportunities provided. It is likely that neither of these holds true for developing and least developed countries".

While it could be said that Trips signatories should be expected to comply with their obligations, certain commentators have argued that developed states have failed to deliver their side of the WTO 'horse trade'. It has been claimed that concessions on market-opening by developed states to the less developed have not proceeded as expected.

Tensions have arisen between pharmaceutical companies and those pressing for freely available drugs to deal with the Aids pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. Although this issue has, to an extent, been resolved by patent holder concessions, perhaps national governments should be able to decide the appropriate level of protection for IPRs for their territory.

That is not to say that the rights of creators, inventors and brand owners should be entirely ignored, but the balance could be shifted more to the developing country's own circumstances pending development, which would allow those countries to enjoy the benefits described by Mr Justice Laddie. Given that the global landscape is not uniform, what practical measures should brand owners adopt to best protect their interests?

For a start, it is important for holders of IP rights to factor in the differences in IPR protection and enforcement throughout the world in devising a business plan. They should consider concentrating on a few key jurisdictions and ensuring IPR protection is secure there, before taking advantage of the priority rights afforded under various treaties to apply for protection in other jurisdictions. It is vital to ensure that rights – particularly in key jurisdictions – remain valid; if trademarks are not used they could be revoked.

They should monitor the activity – and applications for registrations – of potential infringers and be ready to act quickly against them and should gather information relevant to potential infringement actions, such as details of sales and advertising spend in various countries.

In terms of prevention, IPR holders should ensure that registration and renewal fees are paid at the registries in various countries (you may need to appoint a local agent to handle this) and should specify clearly to any exporters, licensees and distributors the terms on which they carry out their business and the territory in which they may sell the product or service.

Consider marking restrictions imposed on packaging so that all supply chain members are made aware of these restrictions.

Moves to increase uniformity of IPR laws on a global basis continue, but it may be difficult – and, ultimately, undesirable – to achieve a 'one size fits all' approach, given the differences in economic development between various countries worldwide.

Global brand protection can bring considerable benefits, but the penetration of brands to far-flung corners of the world has not been matched with a uniform system of IPR protection. Brand owners must be aware of local differences. It may be possible to use these to your advantage – local knowledge remains key.

Elizabeth Bowes is a senior associate in international law firm Allen & Overy's intellectual property group.