What’s the most common misconception about IP enforcement, and how does it impact companies/consumers?
One of the biggest misconceptions about IP enforcement is relying on an Anti-Counterfeiting Program based exclusively on Online Enforcement (notice and takedown - NTD) to clean the markets. Whether due to budget constraints, incorrect forecasts or internal demands for a simple, quick-results strategy, many companies no longer give due credit to real-world anti-infringement measures.
It is true that a NTD strategy immediate removal of an online offender’s website, page or online commerce profile, with excellent statistical results, as well as capital savings due to lower investment. However, there are costs to relying on this strategy alone. Perhaps the main Achilles' heel of relying solely on an NTD strategy is that no matter how many times action is taken against an online target, a few days later or even within a matter of hours, that same vendor can be back online, either directly or by means of a front company or individual acting as a designated infringer.
Also, if physical products are not seized, then they remain available for future sale. As a consequence, it is even possible that ineffective NTD-only strategies are actually encouraging online offenders, by failing to establish a strong enough deterrent. It is thus vital crucial to review anti-infringement strategies regularly, diversifying and adapting them in response to new data in order to stay ahead of this fast-evolving threat.
What are your top 2 recommendations to a brand that is building up its IP enforcement program?
A perfect IP enforcement program encompasses many different pieces of strategy and generally requires high investments to deal with the problem, especially considering the volume of counterfeits in the local market.
However, for companies facing for the first time the challenge of addressing proper measures, there are two basic pieces of strategy that should be considered as initial steps: 1) Investigation and 2) Border Protection.
Online investigations and physical market surveys give an overview of the incidence of counterfeit activity, provide the IP Owner with a list of potential targets, obtain information regarding companies and individuals involved and estimate quantity and type of illegal products. After that, the IP Owner will be capable of evaluating next steps, such as deeper investigations to find distributors, importers and/ or local factories, preventive measures, or enforcement initiatives.
Besides investigation, building a solid Border Enforcement Program can easily allow IP Owners to obtain fast and effective results with low investments. Only a few steps are needed to enable seizures of large quantities of products, such as application before the National Directory to Fight Counterfeiting – NDFC, presentation of an Inspection Request before COANA – Customs Administration and training initiatives.
What’s your favorite famous or inspirational quote?
“To improve is to change, so to be perfect is to change often”. This quote from Sir Winston Churchill has driven my professional life and the way I always represented my clients. It is true that static is enemy to evolution, which means that better results demand different approaches.
In the Brand Protection/ Anti-Counterfeiting world the above concept is not different. Specialization does not mean that we have to do it all over again every time.
The change must be constant, even if the tools available are the same. Maybe a single vision of the case is not sufficient. A different perspective might be the key-factor for a great result. And this is applicable to all stages of a case, such as target selection, investigation, strategy formulation, complaint draft, raid execution, among others.
Therefore, in case you need to find the perfect professional partnership, try to identify someone who usually presents uncommon views to the problem and looks to find different paths to solve the case.
Contact info: jhwerner@dannemann.com.br |
|