Counterfeit enforcement does not end when goods are seized.
That point came through clearly during the IACC session, Securing Counterfeit Products from Seizure to Disposal, moderated by (photo L to R) Jennie Martel of Colgate-Palmolive, with insights from Andres Diaz of AIT Enforcement, Godfrey Budeli of Adams & Adams, Charles Hoskin of Beiersdorf, & Jack Laverty of World Vision.
Based on his experiences in African jurisdictions, Godfrey Budeli offered an example so memorable, you could almost smell it. In one matter, approximately half a million tins of fish had to remain in storage while proceedings continued. The goods required temperature-controlled storage, but the available facility had no refrigeration, so the evidence was kept in shipping containers. After roughly two months, the tins began to explode.
It was a vivid reminder that disposal delays are not merely procedural. They can create evidence, product-condition, storage, cost, & operational risks.
The example also underscores a broader point: post-seizure handling requires planning, coordination, & verification at every stage. A few practical takeaways stood out:
Key Takeaways / Action Points
- Get the inventory right at seizure: Count item-by-item where possible rather than relying on estimates.
- Align early with authorities & brand owners: Clarify custody, storage, transport, disposal, & verification expectations before issues arise.
- Treat transportation as a high-risk handoff: Maintain chain of custody & consider escort or added security where appropriate.
- Plan disposal from the start: Do not treat destruction, recycling, repurposing, or donation as an end-stage administrative task.
- Use secure, auditable storage: Especially when goods are moved into private-sector facilities or held for extended periods.
- Move faster on perishable, unstable, or sensitive goods: Delays can create product-condition, cost, evidence, & operational risks.
- Verify destruction or disposition carefully: Use timestamped photos/video, certification, & trusted in-person observation when possible.
- Explore sustainable options early: Recycling, repurposing, or controlled donation may be appropriate when legal, brand protection, & chain-of-custody concerns can be addressed.
Disposal Is the Final Control Point
Jennie Martel framed destruction & disposal as the final control point in the enforcement chain. If control fails there, the safeguards built earlier: seizure, inventory, transport, & storage, can be weakened or completely fall apart.
Andres Diaz emphasized the importance of initial inventory & alignment with authorities before operations begin. That early control matters because uncertainty at the start can follow the goods through storage, transport, & disposal. The session also highlighted the importance of secure transportation, verified destruction, & documentation such as timestamped photos, video, official certifications, & trusted observation.
The panel also highlighted that disposal does not always mean destruction. Jack Laverty of World Vision brought an important humanitarian perspective to the conversation, sharing how some seized goods may be redirected to help fight poverty when safety, legality, brand protection, & chain-of-custody concerns can be properly addressed. In one example, the brand had concerns about whether the goods were suitable for distribution, including potential flammability issues, mold risk if the products became wet, & possible market confusion. With proper demarcation, secure chain of custody, & distribution in non-competing markets, 50,000 units of outerwear were ultimately directed to communities facing extreme temperatures.
During the audience Q&A, Charles Hoskin was asked a question many brand owners may privately weigh: do the cost, time, & operational challenges of anti-counterfeit enforcement ever make the effort feel less worthwhile?
His answer was no. From the brand perspective, the risk of inaction remains too significant. Counterfeit goods can re-enter the market if they are not properly controlled, create reputational & consumer risk, and operate as a competing force against the legitimate brand, without carrying the same obligations around quality, compliance, or accountability.
For any brand built on trust, that is too high a price to pay.
From Enforcement Practice to Industry Progress
For Vaudra International, this conversation also connects to work we have been engaged in through International Trademark Association (INTA)’s Sustainable Destruction of Counterfeit Goods Working Group (SDCF). Our interest began practically. Like many brands & law firms, we know how easy it can be for evidence to remain in storage long after a matter has ended, particularly when the goods are not tied to an active civil or criminal action. Over time, those boxes can become easy to overlook (offsite = out of mind), even as they continue to create cost, space, environmental, & disposition questions.
That experience helped sharpen our internal practices. Today, we work to ensure that evidence not tied to an active civil or criminal matter is addressed at case close — whether shipped to the client, donated, repurposed, destroyed, or otherwise handled according to client direction & applicable requirements, preferably in a sustainable way (whenever possible). Some clients even demand it.
Through INTA’s cross-committee work, including a global survey of brand owners released last year, the broader challenge became clear: sustainable destruction practices are still developing, product types & jurisdictions create real complexity, and many brand owners are seeking practical guidance, education, & shared resources.
The goal is not simply to remove counterfeit goods from the market once. It is to ensure they do not re-enter it, create new safety risks, or leave brands with unresolved legal, environmental, or operational questions. In some cases, that may mean verified destruction. In others, it may mean recycling, repurposing, or carefully controlled donation that creates a positive impact without compromising brand protection.
Post-seizure handling is not cleanup. It is brand protection & when handled responsibly, it may also create an opportunity for broader good.
Author Note:This article reflects insights and takeaways from Tamara (Tarbutton) Rabenold, CEO & Owner of Vaudra International. Tamara also co-leads INTA’s Sustainable Destruction of Counterfeit Goods Working Group. The preceding post was originally posted to LinkedIn.
