INTA Working Group Conducts Survey on Sustainable Destruction of Counterfeit Goods

INTA’s Sustainable Destruction of Counterfeits Working Group recently conducted a survey that shed light on the growing concerns surrounding counterfeit goods and the sustainability challenges associated with their disposal. The survey collected responses from 86 industry-specific participants, revealing key trends, challenges, and opportunities in tackling counterfeit product destruction.

The Association created a cross-committee working group formed by members of the Brands and Sustainability Committee and the Anticounterfeiting Committee to focus specifically on the environmental impact of the destruction of counterfeit products.

Counterfeiting remains a persistent issue affecting industries worldwide, and counterfeit products are often of questionable quality and even outright unsafe for public use. Preventing the seized counterfeits from reentering markets is therefore a priority concern for INTA and its members. However, current methods of destruction of these products include some very unsafe practices with harmful effects for the environment and workers involved in the process.

Many brand owners are interested in exploring more responsible and sustainable disposal options for seized counterfeit goods, particularly as environmental considerations gain prominence. Initial research indicates, however, that laws and practices in important jurisdictions are complex and opaque, at times even within a jurisdiction and from port to port.

The Working Group therefore conducted a survey of brand owners aimed to assess industry attitudes toward counterfeit destruction, identify current disposal methods, and explore sustainable alternatives while highlighting opportunities for policy improvements and advocacy initiatives. The survey was conducted in collaboration with REACT, a not-for-profit organization experienced in combating counterfeiting.

Key Findings

Counterfeiting Affects Diverse Industries: The survey highlights counterfeiting’s broad impact, with clothing, footwear, cosmetics, electronics, and handbags/accessories most affected, emphasizing the need for industry-specific disposal strategies.

Responsibility for Destruction Costs: Of the 86 respondents, 38 percent believe only infringers should pay for the destruction of counterfeits, while 34 percent support shared responsibility between infringers and importers. Another 17 percent think the cost should be split among importers, infringers, and state/customs authorities. Only 10 percent felt brands should be partially responsible. These results highlight a strong preference for holding infringers and importers accountable while minimizing financial burdens on brand owners.

Additionally, more than 65 percent of respondents believe financial liability should remain consistent across criminal cases, customs seizures, and civil litigation.

Geographic Trends in Counterfeit Seizures: Altogether, 60 respondents indicated their company seizes counterfeit products worldwide, while other respondents provided specific regions: with 29 mentions for Asia-Pacific, 24 for Europe, 17 for Africa and the Middle East, 14 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 12 for North America. When asked which five countries should be prioritized for this project, China led (58 respondents), followed by Türkiye (23), India (20), the United States (18), Brazil (14), and Germany (14).

Limited Adoption of Sustainable Destruction Methods: Despite growing environmental concerns, sustainable destruction practices are not widely adopted within the relevant industries. More than 36 percent of respondents have not yet implemented any sustainable methods. Among those who have, the preferred methods include deconstruction and recycling of parts/materials, as well as shredding and repurposing. Some respondents also remove branding to facilitate donations of seized goods.

Low Awareness of Sustainable Disposal Initiatives: Awareness of sustainable disposal initiatives remains low, with many respondents unaware of organizations offering sustainable counterfeit destruction. Countries like Bulgaria, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and others have local initiatives, but few companies know about or use them. This gap underscores the need for industry education and policy advocacy.

Proactiveness and Budget Constraints: While more than half the respondents encourage their local partners—such as investigators, law enforcement, and legal representatives—to prioritize sustainable destruction, only 40 percent take direct action themselves. This indicates a reliance on external stakeholders rather than internal initiatives.

Budget constraints also pose a significant barrier. Although 63 percent of respondents recognize the importance of sustainable destruction, only 23 percent allocate additional funds for such practices. This suggests that competing financial priorities and limited access to sustainable options hinder broader adoption.

Interest in Collaboration and Project Updates: More than 50 percent of respondents expressed interest in collaborating with INTA and other stakeholders to improve counterfeit disposal methods. Additionally, there is a strong demand for regular updates on progress, indicating an opportunity for structured engagement and industry-wide cooperation.

The survey reveals key challenges in counterfeit disposal, from costs to limited sustainable practices. Despite low awareness of available initiatives, industry interest in collaboration and reform is evident. INTA can drive change by educating stakeholders, advocating policy shifts, and promoting responsible disposal.

Learn more and read the survey results.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest.

© 2025 International Trademark Association