EU's Law Enforcement Agency Closes 4,500 Websites Peddling Fake Brands (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: In a massive crackdown, police and law enforcement agencies across Europe have seized more than 4,500 website domains trading in counterfeit goods, often via social networks, officials said on Monday. The operation came as Europol, Europe's police agency, unveiled its newest campaign dubbed "Don't F***(AKE) Up" to stop scam websites selling fake brand names online. In the crackdown, agencies from 27 countries mostly in Europe but including from the U.S. and Canada, joined forces to shut down over 4,500 websites. They were selling everything from "luxury goods, sportswear, spare parts, electronics, pharmaceuticals, toiletries and other fake products," Europol said in a statement, without saying how long the crackdown took. An annual operation run in collaboration with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security, there was "a significant increase in the number of seized domain names compared to last year," said Europol director Rob Wainwright. As part of the crackdown, Dutch anti-fraud police arrested 12 people across The Netherlands over the past two weeks as they searched homes and warehouses. Most of the raids were prompted by online sales of counterfeit goods on social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram. More than 3,500 items of clothing and fake luxury goods were seized in Holland, including shoes, bags and perfumes purporting to be such brands as Nike, Adidas, and Kenzo, with a market value of tens of thousands euros. Publishing a guide on how to spot fake websites and social media scams, Europol warned consumers had to be on their guard.

Comments

Idiocracy

[alternative_right]

"Don't F***(AKE) Up"

Anyone else think this is a bit Idiocratic, or pandering to the TV crowd? I can't take it seriously.

Protecting whom?

[mspohr]

"Europol warned consumers had to be on their guard"
I don't think that anyone buying cheap "brand name" items from a web site is deluded enough to think they are getting the real thing. They realize that brands charge a premium for the social cachet and not necessarily quality. People are just purchasing the cachet at a discount.
This is much more about protecting the profits of the brands than protecting the consumer.

And in other news

[Okian Warrior]

In other news, Josef Prusa has his PayPal account locked the day before black Friday.

Prusa is the maker of the (fairly well known) Prusa 3-d printer, and as is typical in these PayPal situations, he hasn't the first clue why it happened. They locked all his funds - he can't fulfill purchases and can't even refund his customers.

At least in the Europe case it was the police doing it. When companies do this on request of other companies it puts them in a very hard position.

I wonder how many *non fake* websites got caught up in the sweep, and how many legitimate businesses will be trashed as a result?

Re:And in other news

[guruevi]

His first mistake was using PayPal. Everyone knows by now PP will do anything to make a quick buck.

Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers

[Just Some Guy]

That's great news! Trademarks are the one part of IP I can happily support. If I want to buy Foo brand shoes, and I see a shoebox marked with Foo's logo, I want to be reasonably sure that it actually contains Foo-approved shoes. Sure, people try to abuse trademarks ("you're not allowed to use our name in a news article criticizing us!" and other jackassery), but the actual concept of trademarks is great. This is the kind of IP law enforcement I actually want to see.

Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers

[hackwrench]

Misrepresentation of the origin of a good does not need trademark to have a special protection in order to be illegal.

Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers

[TheRealMindChild]

Quality is subjective. You can't honestly insist there be some judgemental body that eats money deciding if something is "of the same quality"

Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers

[Just Some Guy]

Uh, no. It's not a standards mark but an indicator of origin. I may think Foo brand shoes suck, but if I want genuine Foo for whatever reason, I want to know I'm buying genuine Foo. Maybe their quality sucks but they're made in a well-respected factory in Colorado, they treat their employees well, and they only emit pure oxygen and distilled water from their factories. The Chinese knockoffs might be better, but I want the Colorado-made product. The whole point of trademarks is that only Foo can claim to make Foo shoes.

Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Now the way you get tell fakes from the genuine product is because they were made better and lasted longer than the genuine product

Generally, no. The fake sneakers tend to be made with poor quality vinylized fabric rather than leather, the soles are thin and wear out quickly, and the stitches are more sparse and seams done more with glue than with stronger stitching. And since they're fake, the chances of getting a refund from the manufacturer are very poor, much as they are with other goods.

The fake name brand problem also includes Cisco and other quite high end network equipment, cheap phones that have been "skinned" to look like iPhones, tools and toys made of poor quality tin instead of the expected steel, and children's toys painted and made with toxic levels of heavy metals. It's not merely a matter of defrauding trademarked vendors, but of selling dangerous objects to unsuspecting purchasers.

Re:the Ben Frank quote below

[110010001000]

Is Ben Frank a counterfeit Ben Franklin?