Anti-counterfeiting

Anti-counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is the illegal manufacture and sale of branded replicas of a product. Crucially, a counterfeit good will include the trade mark used in association with the copied product (without the permission of the trade mark owner). The trade mark might be affixed to the product itself, its packaging or in marking material, such as on a website.

Counterfeit goods are commonly referred to as ‘fakes’ and are often of inferior quality to the product they imitate. Certain types of counterfeit goods such as children's toys, pharmaceuticals, foods and electrical equipment may pose a public safety risk. Typically, counterfeit goods are produced in regions where manufacturing costs are low such as Asia and Eastern Europe. Consumers are either duped into buying a fake or, especially in the field of designer clothes, knowingly purchase a cheap ‘knock off’.

Counterfeit goods offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994

As well as civil liability for trade mark infringement, the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) sets out a number of criminal offences relating to the unauthorised use of a trade mark in relation to goods. Key offences set out in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

IP weekly highlights—25 September 2025

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: Welcome to this week’s edition of the IP weekly highlights: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes.

The construction of jurisdiction clauses in the context of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the mechanisms of service(Campeau v Gottex Real Asset Fund 1 (OE) Waste S.À.R.L)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers a jurisdictional clause in the context of service under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), which allows service out of the jurisdiction where the defendant is party to a jurisdiction clause. There is no corresponding requirement for the claimant to be a party to that jurisdiction clause. The starting point is that jurisdiction clauses are not generally intended to concern disputes with third parties. However, that is no more than a starting point and one which can be departed from in appropriate cases. This was one such appropriate case whereby the circumstances and construction of the clause led to the finding that it did include the third party claimant’s (Mr Campeau) claim. While not strictly necessary given the judge’s findings in relation to the construction of the clause, Mr Justice Butcher considered that, where a jurisdictional clause was wide enough to encompass disputes from third parties, then it will likely also amount to a ‘relevant term’ for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999). That meant that the third party, in seeking to enforce their rights under the SPA, was statutorily obliged to do so in England and so could rely upon CPR 6.33 (2B) (b) in that respect also. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction) at Capita.

IPO announces new intellectual property minister appointment

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has confirmed the appointment of Kanishka Narayan MP as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with responsibility for intellectual property. IPO Chief Executive Adam Williams welcomed the appointment, noting the minister's role in supporting the UK's intellectual property system and its contribution to economic growth through protection and commercialisation of innovations.

What changes to UK design law might be on the horizon?

IP analysis: The UK government is consulting on reforms to modernise design law, aimed at simplifying the system, improving enforcement, and adapting to digital innovation. Key proposals include introducing powers to prevent bad-faith filings, extending periods of deferment, and allowing the registration of designs in video format. The consultation also explores the simplification of unregistered design rights, the alignment (or otherwise) of protection in the UK and EU post-Brexit and addresses AI-generated designs. The consultation closes on 27 November 2025. Written by Emily Gamblen, trainee Patent attorney, and Caroline Marshall, partner, Potter Clarkson LLP.