The majority of enforcement is reactive, and even the supposedly proactive ones don’t implement it well enough
Dr. David Shepherd, et al, 2023 – Senior Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom. “PRACTICES USED BY ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO TACKLE THE TRADE IN COUNTERFEITS” World Intellectual Property Organization Advisory Committee on Enforcement, 11/24,
//DH
57. Surprisingly few platforms claim to monitor their platforms (34 per cent), which triangulates with the views of brand participants that the controls of most platforms are reactive in responding to reports of counterfeits rather than proactive in their surveillance. The absence of proactive monitoring on some platforms may be due to naivety. Participant K had observed an acute lack of awareness in one classified ads business which emerged as a genuine shock when it was confronted with the scale of counterfeits on its platform. Most of those who do monitor their platforms also publish transparency reports (22 per cent). These provide statistics about the number of reports by rights holders, requests for information and interventions in the reporting period.
58. A small number (18 per cent) claim they use machine learning or artificial intelligence for monitoring purposes. However, according to Participant H, the sheer scale of the number of sellers and transactions means that even the AI systems on his platform are currently restricted to sampling rather than 100 per cent continuous monitoring. Furthermore, his platform is finding that traditional word and image searches are becoming less effective because counterfeiters are learning how to disguise their fake products. Consequently, Participant H is increasingly using AI to monitor trends in sellers’ behaviors. The system flags changes in volumes, values and product types for further investigation.