ENFORCEMENT

Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement
unknowingly) from the trade in counterfeit and pirated
goods, and partner with these entities to pass costs onto
the infringers.
The policy focus is two-fold: to minimize costs borne
by taxpayers and right holders and, equally as important,
to identify opportunities to implement policies that
dis-incentivize practices that may support illicit trade in
counterfeit goods, while incentivizing the adoption of
best practices to increase accountability in the global
shipping trade. The aim is to have the infringers held
liable for storage and destruction costs and, whenever the
identity of the infringer is unknown or the infringer refuses
to pay such costs, to encourage and empower “economic
operators” involved in the trade in infringing goods, such
as carriers, to pass the costs onto the infringer by way of
existing contractual relationships. 39
Incentivizing Carriers to Address Costs Associated
with Violative Shipments from their Customers
United States. Consideration will be given to
opportunities to develop voluntary practices
with shippers to curb counterfeiters’ abuse of
their transport networks, including by way of an
assessment of, for example, the role of enhanced
due diligence and “Know Your Customer”
processes, especially for new exporters in
problem markets with little to no trading history.
ACTION NO. 3.27: Engagement with
international community to consider measures
to hold responsible entities accountable. The
U.S. Interagency Strategy Planning Committees
on IP Enforcement, along with other interested
Federal offices and agencies, will consider
opportunities for appropriate bilateral and
multilateral dialogue, including in international
fora such as the WCO, to promote a global
approach to more effectively shifting costs to
the illicit trader, working with transportation
intermediaries to identify opportunities to
promote exporter accountability.
SECTION 3
Carriers have a contractual relationship with, and
financially benefit from, the entity (i.e., exporter,
importer-of-record, etc.) engaged in illicit trade.
These intermediaries are well positioned to
pass costs and penalties onto their respective
customers by way of contractual obligations,
including, for example, by imposition of fines,
escrow and security deposits, and the like,
especially on behalf of importers/exporters with
no verifiable trade history.
Stronger cooperation between governments, right
holders, and intermediaries—including land, air, and
sea transport operators—may facilitate the effective
identification of entities engaged in illicit activity, as well
as provide opportunities for cost recovery.
ACTION NO. 3.26: Assess opportunities to
shift storage and destruction costs to entities
involved in the trade in infringing goods.
DHS will assess the state of U.S. storage and
destructions costs, and provide recommendations
to the U.S. Interagency Strategy Planning
Committees on IP Enforcement, and other
appropriate Federal Government stakeholders,
on how to shift the burden away from the
Government (or rights holders) to the illicit trader
that is directing the violative shipments into the
5. Dispose of Infringing Goods in an
Environmentally-Friendly Manner.
The growth in trade of counterfeit and pirated
goods, coupled with the increasing effectiveness of
customs authorities in detecting and confiscating
infringing products, has given rise to new logistical
and environmental dimensions as larger amounts
of counterfeit goods are interdicted every year. The
question of how to responsibly dispose of counterfeit
items is particularly challenging with electronic,
chemical, and pharmaceutical counterfeiting. 40
The storage and environmentally-sound disposal of
large quantities of illicit goods in hundreds of locations
around the world presents a logistical challenge for
governments and customs administrations everywhere.
There is increasing recognition of the need to dispose
of these goods in a safe and environmentally-sensitive
way, which is resulting in adoption of disposal and
destruction procedures that are more technically
complex, costly, and onerous for governments and
rights holders. 41
The disposal of confiscated goods implicates two
primary concerns: (1) the need to protect the IP owner
and consumer alike from the existence of unlawful trade
in fraudulent goods, while simultaneously depriving the
112