Counterfeit Products: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (2)

In Trademark Counterfeiting, Product Piracy, and the Billion-Dollar Threat to the U.S. Economy (1999), Paul R. Paradise peppers his analysis with anecdotes that bring the abstract problem of counterfeiting to life. One memorable story he recounts involves a shipment of counterfeit pharmaceuticals intercepted by U.S. Customs: the pills, designed to look identical to a well-known medication, were discovered to contain completely inert substances, rendering them not just worthless but potentially dangerous to unsuspecting patients. Paradise uses this anecdote to illustrate the human cost behind statistics, showing that counterfeiting is not merely a financial nuisance but a risk to public health.

Another example Paradise describes is the proliferation of fake luxury handbags in tourist markets. He narrates how consumers, drawn by the promise of designer status at bargain prices, often knowingly purchase legally counterfeit items. Paradise highlights the irony and moral blindness: these small transactions may seem harmless, yet they collectively fuel an international network of organised crime, from production factories in Asia to distribution channels in Western cities. Through these stories, Paradise effectively personalises the threat of counterfeiting, turning numbers and economic analysis into tangible, real-world consequences that readers can grasp emotionally and intellectually.

Global counterfeit trade routes are undergoing profound changes, driven by digitalisation, geopolitical shifts, and evolving enforcement tactics. According to the 2025 OECD–EUIPO report Mapping Global Trade in Fakes, counterfeit networks have adapted to bypass tighter border controls by decentralising production and increasingly relying on agile, fragmented logistics routes.​

Traditionally, counterfeit goods originated predominantly in China and Hong Kong before moving through major transit hubs such as the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Singapore. However, these pathways have diversified. Counterfeiters now exploit new corridors through Eastern Europe, North Africa, and Latin America, taking advantage of weaker customs supervision and expanding infrastructure linked to the Belt and Road Initiative. For example, smuggling along inland waterways such as the Danube River has increased, providing low-surveillance alternatives to heavily monitored maritime ports.​

One of the most notable developments is the rise of “localisation” strategies — assembling counterfeit goods closer to their destination markets. Counterfeiters now ship unassembled components or packaging materials separately, then complete production inside free trade zones or even within consumer countries themselves. This logistics innovation complicates detection, as customs often intercept only fragments of shipments that appear legitimate. As a result, Europe and North America are no longer just destinations but have also become secondary assembly points for counterfeit production.​\

In parallel, e-commerce has redrawn counterfeit distribution patterns. About 65 per cent of seizures now involve small parcels and postal shipments, reflecting the dominance of online marketplaces and fast delivery services. This “micro-shipment” strategy makes it more difficult for customs authorities to track, as millions of small packages bypass traditional freight inspections daily.​

Technology is both part of the problem and the solution. Counterfeiters use digital marketing and encrypted supply chains to disguise illicit trade, while logistics companies are increasingly deploying blockchain-based tracking and AI-powered authentication to verify supply chain integrity. For instance, 2025 industry assessments highlight blockchain as a promising tool for tracking provenance, with major logistics providers now piloting it to prevent infiltration by fake goods.​

The counterfeit trade is evolving from centralised bulk shipping to decentralised, digital, and highly adaptive systems — blending smuggling, e-commerce, and hybrid manufacturing to stay one step ahead of enforcement.

In The Economics of Counterfeit Trade: Governments, Consumers, Pirates and Intellectual Property Rights (2009, Springer), Dr. Peggy E. Chaudhry and Dr. Alan Zimmerman open their discussion on the History of Counterfeiting by reminding readers that imitation is not a modern phenomenon born of globalisation, but an age-old practice intertwined with human commerce since ancient civilisation. They trace the roots of counterfeiting back to the earliest marketplaces of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, where artisans forged coins, copied luxury goods, and passed off inferior products as genuine. Counterfeiting, they note, evolved hand-in-hand with trade itself; wherever there was value, there was imitation.

Chaudhry and Zimmerman explain that during the Roman Empire, counterfeit coins were already recognised as a serious offence, as they undermined the integrity of the economy and public trust. In medieval Europe, the rise of guilds led to new forms of product imitation, as rival craftsmen sought to profit from established reputations. The industrial revolution, they argue, marked a turning point — mass production, new branding techniques, and expanding trade routes created both opportunities and temptations for piracy on a far greater scale. By the 20th century, the authors reveal, counterfeiting had transformed from a localised crime into a sophisticated global enterprise, fuelled by modern logistics, consumer demand, and digital technology.

What Chaudhry and Zimmerman ultimately show is that counterfeiting’s long history reflects a consistent tension between innovation and imitation — a struggle that mirrors the evolution of capitalism itself. The same drive that fuels creativity and progress also invites exploitation, making counterfeiting not only an economic challenge but a deeply human one.

Chaudhry and Zimmerman emphasise that counterfeit trade is not limited to a narrow set of luxury items, but has invaded an astonishingly broad array of product categories. They point out that everything from clothing and footwear, watches, cosmetics and perfumes, to more technically complex goods such as automotive parts, aircraft components, pharmaceuticals, and software are targets of counterfeiting. They note that the ease with which the illicit producers can mimic brands—often copying logos, packaging, and trademarks—allows them to pass off inferior or unsafe goods as genuine. The authors underscore how the involvement of high-technology products signals a shift: counterfeiting is no longer confined to simple imitations, but includes critical and high-stakes goods whose failure or substandard nature can pose serious risks to consumers and industries. By drawing attention to the sheer diversity of counterfeited products, Chaudhry & Zimmerman make clear that counterfeiting is deeply embedded in global trade and supply chains.

They also explore the multiple interlocking factors that have driven the exponential growth of the counterfeit goods market. They describe how low cost and high technology combine to lower the barrier to entry for counterfeit producers: minimal investment, digital design, automated production, and global logistics make counterfeiting ever more attractive. They further discuss how globalisation and lowered trade barriers have vastly expanded both production and distribution channels for illicit goods, allowing counterfeiters to tap new markets and bypass older restrictions. The authors also bring in the role of consumer complicity: some consumers actively choose counterfeit goods because of price, image or availability, while others unwittingly support the trade. Moreover, the expansion of channels and markets—especially via the internet, e-commerce platforms, and small parcel shipments—has made it easier for fakes to spread. They argue that powerful worldwide brands themselves become magnets for counterfeiting because the more recognised a brand is, the more value there is to imitate it. Weak international and national enforcement regimes are another major driver: legal systems that are under-resourced, inconsistent, or lack coordination allow counterfeiters to operate with relative impunity. Finally, they highlight that high tariffs and taxes on genuine products can make counterfeit alternatives more attractive to consumers, thus feeding demand. In total, the authors present a complex ecosystem of supply, demand, legal, technological and economic forces that underlie the growth of counterfeit goods.

The authors explain that a relatively small number of countries dominate the global supply of counterfeit products. They set out how certain jurisdictions combine large manufacturing capacity, weak or inconsistently enforced intellectual property regimes, and open trade or transit hubs such that goods produced (or at least shipped) from those locations increasingly find their way into global markets as counterfeits. Chaudhry and Zimmerman discuss how these source countries not only produce finished counterfeit goods but also components, packaging, and raw materials for fake production, thereby forming entire supply chains for illicit trade. They draw attention to the significance of export-oriented economies and free trade zones in facilitating the movement of fake goods, alongside the crucial role of transit states and diversion of goods via legitimate trade channels to hide their origin. Moreover, the authors examine how customs seizure data and IPR enforcement statistics reveal the prominence of certain countries—for example, China, including its special administrative regions — as primary origins of intercepted counterfeits, thus identifying them as “problem countries” from a supply-side viewpoint.

The authors explore the critical role consumers play in sustaining the counterfeit market. They argue that consumers are not simply passive victims of fake goods; rather, they often participate actively in the demand for counterfeit products, and in many cases, they do so knowingly. The authors describe different consumer behaviours: some buyers are “naïve,” purchasing counterfeit goods without realising their illegitimacy, while others are “cynical,” fully aware that the products are fake yet unconcerned about the moral or legal implications.

Chaudhry and Zimmerman present a conceptual model to explain consumer complicity, highlighting how demographic factors such as age, income, and education, combined with attitudes toward brands and imitation, perceived risks, and marketing variables like price, brand prestige, and social desirability, influence the decision to purchase counterfeit goods. They emphasise that consumers often rationalise their actions, convincing themselves that a fake handbag, watch, or software is “good enough for the price,” or framing the purchase as a savvy, pragmatic choice rather than an illegal act. Furthermore, the authors illustrate how the marketing strategies of genuine brands—by emphasising social status, exclusivity, or aspirational lifestyles—indirectly fuel the counterfeit market, as consumers seek to emulate the appearance of owning luxury goods without paying full price. Chaudhry and Zimmerman conclude that efforts to combat counterfeiting cannot succeed without addressing consumer behaviour, because tackling supply alone leaves demand unchecked and the counterfeit economy intact.

The authors conclude that the phenomenon of counterfeiting is a complex, multifaceted problem that cannot be addressed solely through legal enforcement or supply‑side interventions. Throughout the book, they emphasise that counterfeiting is embedded within global economic, social, and technological systems, involving a dynamic interplay between producers, consumers, governments, and international trade networks. They argue that tackling the problem requires a holistic approach: strong and consistent intellectual property laws, effective enforcement mechanisms, international cooperation, corporate vigilance, and, critically, efforts to change consumer behaviour and perceptions regarding counterfeit goods.

The authors’ central message is that counterfeiting is not merely a crime of supply or a financial nuisance—it is a social, ethical, and economic challenge that implicates everyone in the market. Consumers who knowingly or unknowingly purchase counterfeit goods sustain the industry; companies and governments that fail to adapt enforcement or educational strategies inadvertently allow it to flourish. By combining historical context, economic analysis, case studies, and data, Chaudhry and Zimmerman make clear that the fight against counterfeiting is ultimately a shared responsibility. The book serves as both a warning and a guide, advocating for coordinated, systemic efforts to protect intellectual property, uphold market integrity, and educate consumers about the broader consequences of counterfeit trade.

The industries that suffer the most financial damage from counterfeiting are primarily those with highly recognisable and valuable brands, making them prime targets for counterfeiters. Based on the latest data, the clothing, footwear, and leather goods sectors bear the greatest brunt, accounting for the majority of seized counterfeit products worldwide. These sectors are vulnerable due to their strong brand appeal and relatively easy replicability. Luxury fashion and accessories rank at the top because counterfeit versions of handbags, shoes, and apparel are widely sold across global markets.

Electronics and telecommunications equipment also face significant counterfeit threats, including fake smartphones, headphones, and computer parts that not only cause revenue loss but also safety risks for consumers. The pharmaceutical and healthcare industries have increasingly become a target for counterfeit drugs and medical devices, posing serious health hazards. Additionally, watches and jewellery are heavily counterfeited, hitting the luxury market and causing considerable economic and employment losses.

Moreover, counterfeit automotive parts, cosmetics, toys, and food products are on the rise, representing dangerous and often life-threatening fakes. Their spread harms public safety and burden healthcare systems, with economic impacts extending beyond lost sales to include legal, regulatory, and social costs.

While counterfeit goods span almost every industry, the sectors most financially and socially impacted include fashion, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and luxury goods, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced enforcement, consumer awareness, and innovative anti-counterfeiting technologies. This information is supported by statistics from the 2025 OECD–EUIPO report and several market analyses.

The authors undertake a detailed and nuanced examination of China’s role in the global counterfeit trade, locating the country both as a major manufacturing base and as a focal point of intellectual‑property rights (IPR) challenges. They begin by tracing China’s extraordinary economic growth and how its transformation into a global manufacturing hub, combined with relatively weak IPR enforcement and regulatory frameworks, helped create fertile conditions for large‑scale counterfeiting. They estimate the size of the Chinese counterfeit market, highlight historical weaknesses in China’s IP regime, and assess how recent legal and enforcement reforms have progressed—but also stress that significant hurdles remain.

Chaudhry and Zimmerman document how China’s history of intellectual property rights protection differs markedly from Western models: historically, collective or state ownership concepts and looser attitudes to imitation played a strong cultural role, thereby influencing patterns of manufacturing and enforcement. They point out that China’s legal system, though reformed, still suffers from jurisdictional fragmentation, local protectionism and coordination problems among national, provincial and local authorities, which undermine effective anti‑counterfeiting operations. The authors also examine recent events—such as increased seizures, higher fines, and lobbying by multinational firms—and discuss how information sources and data limitations affect estimates of the problem’s scale in China. In conclusion, the chapter positions China as a country of dual character: one that has made important strides in combating counterfeiting yet remains a central node in the global supply of illicit goods because of structural, institutional and economic factors.

Counterfeit trade has a profoundly damaging influence on employment and job stability worldwide. When legitimate companies lose sales to fake products, they often face the harsh need to cut costs, which frequently means laying off staff or freezing hiring. This has a direct impact on workers’ livelihoods and can destabilise local communities dependent on those industries. Furthermore, counterfeiting stifles innovation; companies hesitate to invest in new products and technologies when they know their efforts could be cheaply copied and sold illegally—this discouragement of innovation limits economic growth and the creation of new jobs.

Beyond the direct economic consequences, counterfeit trade often supports organised crime networks involved in activities like drug trafficking, human trafficking, and money laundering. When consumers buy counterfeit goods—even unknowingly—they may inadvertently fund these criminal enterprises. Additionally, counterfeit products, especially in critical sectors like pharmaceuticals and automotive parts, pose serious safety risks, leading to higher public health costs and loss of productivity due to injury or illness.

The counterfeit trade undermines legitimate businesses, threatens employment opportunities, hampers innovation, fuels organised crime, and endangers consumer safety—making it a complex global issue with wide-ranging social and economic repercussions.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia can learn greatly from the industrial strategies developed by South Korea and China—two nations that transformed from imitation-based manufacturing economies into innovation-driven global powers. South Korea’s model, as outlined by its Ministry of SMEs and Startups, is built upon five pillars: innovative growth, sustainable development, collaboration between firms, global expansion, and smart industry support. The government provided consistent funding, tax incentives, and access to research institutions to help local businesses evolve from subcontractors into independent producers of high-value goods. South Korea also cultivated strong industrial clusters linking SMEs with large conglomerates (chaebols), universities, and public research labs, which accelerated technology transfer and innovation.​

China’s path, though different in political structure, shares key similarities rooted in localisation and industrial clustering. The “one village, one product” and “one town, one industry” initiatives allowed small businesses to specialise in specific goods—from textiles and electronics to ceramics—within interconnected production hubs. This clustering encouraged cooperation among SMEs, creating economies of scale, reducing production costs, and fostering rapid innovation. Local governments in provinces such as Zhejiang and Jiangsu played a central role by providing financing schemes, infrastructure, and export assistance tailored to SME clusters. Over time, these support ecosystems turned local producers into globally competitive manufacturers.​

For Indonesia, adopting similar strategies would mean more than simply copying products from advanced economies. It requires creating structured partnerships among government, academia, and business, promoting regional clusters based on each province’s unique resources and strengths, and encouraging SMEs to move from imitation toward localised innovation. In both Korea and China, imitation was only the starting point — innovation became the national identity once systems of support, education, and trust were firmly established.

Indonesia is absolutely allowed to learn by making an upgraded version rather than producing mere counterfeit or “KW” products. Intellectual property laws in Indonesia protect original creations such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and copyrights. The key is to develop products that show clear innovation and differentiation rather than illegally copying existing brands or designs. Indonesian law encourages creativity and innovation while strictly prohibiting counterfeiting and trademark infringement. This means Indonesian entrepreneurs and UMKM can “study, imitate, and improve” from existing models, as long as they add value, modify significantly, and create genuine new products that respect intellectual property rights.

Creating upgraded versions aligned with local needs and innovations is not just legal but highly encouraged as part of industrial growth and competitiveness. By doing so, Indonesia can move away from negative labels associated with “KW” products and instead build a distinct identity in regional and global markets. Ensuring compliance with intellectual property laws helps sustain fair competition, protect investment, and promote sustainable economic development in the country.

[Part 1]

Bahasa