ENFORCEMENT

Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
31
See, e.g., International Chamber of Commerce, “Controlling
the Zone: Balancing Facilitation and Control to Combat Illicit
Trade in the World’s Free Trade Zones,” at p. 9 (May 2013),
accessed from http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-andrules/bascap/international-engagement-and-advocacy/freetrade-zones/.
32
See, e.g., Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and
Piracy,” at p. 85 (June 2008) (stating that free trade areas have
emerged as facilitators of intellectual property rights abuses,
and that the lack of controls in these areas has made them
attractive locations for parties engaging in trade of counterfeit
and pirated products), accessed from http://www.oecd.org/sti/
ind/theeconomicimpactofcounterfeitingandpiracy.htm.
33
See, e.g., International Trademark Association, “INTA Model
Free Trade Agreement: Measures To Halt The Transshipment
And Transit Of Counterfeit Goods In Free Trade Zones,” at
pp. 29-30 (May 2011), accessed from http://www.inta.org/
Advocacy/Documents/INTAModelFreeTradeAgreement.pdf.
34
See, e.g., United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, “UNCTAD Trust Fund for Trade Negotiations,
Technical Note No. 3: Use of Customs Automation Systems,” at
p. 4 (January 2011) (“the Automated System for Customs Data
Management (ASYCUDA) is a computerized customs management
system, developed by UNCTAD, which is fully integrated and
covers the complete clearance process. The system handles
manifests and customs declarations, accounting procedures, and
transit and suspense procedures. ASYCUDA generates trade data
that can be used for statistical economic analysis. It has been
implemented in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide.
A web-based version, ASYCUDA World, integrates state-of-the-art
ICT technologies”), accessed from http://unctad.org/en/Docs/
TN03_CustomsAutomationSystems.pdf.
the intellectual property rights holder pays the expenses
associated with the destruction of counterfeit goods, but these
expenses can be recovered from the infringer), accessed from
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/documents/11370/80606/
Observatory+update+on+storage+and+destruction.
38
See, e.g. International Trademark Association, “INTA Bulletin:
Customs Border Measures Around the Mediterranean” (January
2011) (as one court in Israel opined, it is “inconceivable that a
person whose rights were infringed will also be compelled to
cover storage and destruction costs when he is not involved in
the importation and only seeks to prevent the infringement of his
rights”), accessed from http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/
CustomsBorderMeasuresAroundtheMediterranean.aspx (quoting
Dior v. Evivi et al., C.F. 6949-12-08 (March 11, 2009) (Israel)).
39
See, e.g., International Chamber of Commerce, “BASCAP 25
Best Practices for IPR Enforcement,” at p. 2 (September 2015),
accessed from http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Bascap/
International-engagement-and-advocacy/Country-Initiatives/
BASCAP-25-Best-practices-for-IPR-Enforcement-Version-24-
September-2015/.
40
See, e.g. World Intellectual Property Organization, “The WIPO
Disposal Study,” at p. 11 (November 2013) (“Adjusted to include
goods carried by air-cargo, the physical volume of infringing
goods can be assumed to be the equivalent of 2.39 million
TEU [a TEU is a full 20-foot maritime container]; or 6500 full 20ft
containers passing through official controls each day.”), accessed
from http://artnet.unescap.org/tid/projects/infringing-goodsdavid.pdf.
41
See, e.g., Soentgen, Judith, “Disposing Of Counterfeit
Goods: Unseen Challenges,” WIPO Magazine (November
2012), accessed from http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/
en/2012/06/article_0007.html.
35
See, e.g., Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, “OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators – United
States” (April 2014), accessed from https://www.oecd.org/
unitedstates/united-states-oecd-trade-facilitation-indicatorsapril-2014.pdf.
36
See, e.g., World Intellectual Property Organization, Advisory
Committee on Enforcement, Fifth Session, “Addressing Costs
and Balancing Rights,” at p. 4 (September 2009), accessed
from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/enforcement/en/
wipo_ace_5/wipo_ace_5_7.pdf; see also Soentgen, Judith,
“Disposing Of Counterfeit Goods: Unseen Challenges,” WIPO
Magazine (November 2012), accessed from http://www.wipo.
int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/06/article_0007.html.
37
See, e.g., U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Intellectual
Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantity the Economic
Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” at p. 3 (April 2010)
(“the federal government also incurs costs to store and destroy
counterfeit and pirated goods. Seized goods have to be
secured, as they have potential value but cannot be allowed
to enter U.S. commerce. Storage may be prolonged by law
enforcement actions, but the goods are generally destroyed
or otherwise disposed of when they are determined to be
illegal and are no longer needed. According to CBP officials, as
seizures have increased, the agency’s storage and destruction
costs have grown and become increasingly burdensome. CBP
reported that it spent about $41.9 million to destroy seized
property between fiscal years 2007 and 2009”), accessed from
http://gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf; see also Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market, “Observatory Update on
Storage and Destruction,” at p. 7 (2014) (finding that in Greece,
42
See, e.g., World Intellectual Property Organization, “Disposal
and Destruction: An Examination of Challenges and Possible
Solutions Prepared for the Sixth Session of the WIPO Advisory
Committee on Enforcement,” at p. 12 (September 2011),
accessed from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/aspac/en/
wipo_ipr_pnh_11/wipo_ipr_pnh_11_ref_t3.pdf; see also TRIPS:
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, Article 46, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, THE
LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF
MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 320 (1999), 1869
U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) (providing that intellectual
property infringing goods should be “disposed of outside the
channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm
caused to the right holder, or, unless this would be contrary to
existing constitutional requirements, destroyed,” and further,
that “the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed
shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit
release of the goods into the channels of commerce”), accessed
from https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
43
See, e.g., United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Focus
on The Illicit Trafficking of Counterfeit Goods and Transnational
Organized Crime,” at p. 4 (January 2014), accessed from
https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/
Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf.
44
See, e.g., United Nations Environment Programme,
“Information Note” (July 2012), accessed from http://
www.unep.org/ozonaction/News/Features/2012/
SoutheastAsiaexploressynergies/tabid/104354/Default.aspx.
SECTION 3
117