Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Manual - Ipr-policy.eu

Unilever also develops special term contracts for predetermined
high-risk suppliers.
Despite these diligent efforts, counterfeiting still occurs,
requiring strong enforcement measures and cooperation
with law enforcement agencies. “It’s critical that we
establish public-private partnerships and create the best
possible legal and enforcement frameworks to discourage
counterfeiters,” says Heath. Direct engagement with
relevant law enforcement agencies in a source, transit,
or destination country is pivotal for following through
on suspected counterfeit activity and, ultimately, yielding
optimal results for the organization. “For instance,
with border seizures, we invest in considerable technical
assistance, training, and capacity-building programs
with Customs agencies wherever the need is identified,”
says Heath. “The civil [court] process is often too slow
and ineffective in developing countries, requiring us to
go down the criminal law or administrative enforcement
route, even though penalties in many countries
are still not tough enough.”
In addition to the more blatant forms of counterfeiting,
Unilever also faces a challenge from products that
are identical in practically every way to the authentic
versions, with only minor variations on the packaging.
“A look-alike, which may use a slightly different brand
but otherwise look just like the real thing, is dealt with
as another form of trademark infringement and pursued
through the civil courts,” Heath says.
Another challenge stems from counterfeiters who manufacture
products under a Unilever brand that does not
match the products, with the goal of confusing the
consumer. Criminals, for example, may pair a counterfeit
toothbrush under a Unilever soap brand, resulting in consumers
buying defective products or being turned away
from buying Unilever products altogether. Heath sums
up the nature of this particular problem saying, “The
threat to consumer confidence is the hardest to quantify
and potentially the most damaging, especially when the
counterfeiter is copying a plausible line extension.”
Despite these challenges, Heath is confident that
Unilever’s efforts are helping protect consumers, while
ensuring that the company’s brands maintain the public’s
trust. Heath acknowledges, though, that there is still
much work needed to raise consumer awareness.
“Stopping the counterfeiters at our end is one part of the
battle, but our customers, retailers, and consumers also
need to be equipped with the information necessary to
spot fakes and help us in this effort.”
Other companies facing similar challenges can learn a
great deal from Unilever’s anti-counterfeiting efforts.
In addition to its cross-division steering group, Heath
believes that another one of Unilever’s strengths is the
company’s “leadership, involvement, and cooperation
with strategic alliances and trade associations at the
global, regional, national, and local levels that are driving
public policy on these issues.” Companies must also look
within and “establish internal brand protection programs
that are tailored to each industry and the specific threats
each company faces.”
In a global economy, Unilever recognizes that its goals of
entering new marketplaces and broadening the reach of
its products also bring additional challenges. Fortunately,
Unilever is not alone in this fight against counterfeiting
and piracy. It has been able to cultivate alliances with government
and industry to effectively confront this threat by
pushing for a more effective legislative and enforcement
framework. By taking proactive measures, the company
is taking the steps necessary to safeguard its long-term
competitiveness, maintain its workers’ jobs, and protect
consumers who rely on its numerous product offerings.
Page 48