


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

55 
 

Original Paper 

Border Measures of Trademark Enforcement in Pakistan: A 

Comparative Analysis with Malaysia and USA 

Sohaib Mukhtar
1*

, Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol
2
 & Sufian Jusoh

3
 

1
 School of Law, Bahria University Islamabad, Pakistan 

2
 Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia  

3
 Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia 

*
 Sohaib Mukhtar, E-mail: sohaibmukhtar@gmail.com 

 

Received: October 23, 2022    Accepted: November 16, 2022    Online Published: December 6, 2022 

doi:10.22158/elp.v5n2p55                    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v5n2p55 

 

Abstract 

Border measures of trademark enforcement is an administrative method required to be implemented 

through executive and administrative customs authority of Pakistan, Malaysia and United States of 

America (USA). Border measures of trademark enforcement runs under Customs Act 1969 and Trade 

Marks Ordinance 2001 in Pakistan, under Customs Act 1967 and Trade Descriptions Act 2011 in 

Malaysia and under Tariff Act 1930 and Lanham Trademark Act 1946 in USA. Trademark is name, 

mark, smell, sign, or a sound distinguishes services and goods of one undertaking from services and 

goods or other undertakings, it is required to be non-descriptive, distinctive and losses its 

distinctiveness when registered owner of trademark does not take prompt and speedy action against its 

infringement. The registered owner of trademark may avail administrative, civil, criminal procedures, 

provisional and border measure for protection of his registered trademark. Border measure is required 

to be adopted by registered trademark owner when there is likelihood of exportation and importation 

of suspected infringed goods which contains suspected identical infringed trademark. This article is 

qualitative method of research as it focusses on comparative analysis of border measures of trademark 

enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA. The purpose of border measure is to prevent importation 

and exportation of infringed goods through administrative customs authority on its own or on 

application and complaint of registered trademark owner. After comparative analysis of border 

measure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA, it is found that the owner of 

registered trademark should be required to furnish his details and details of his registered trademark 

and prescribed goods or services before administrative customs authority immediately after 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

registration, thereupon the customs authority would promptly act on importation and exportation of 

counterfeiting trademark goods.  

Keywords 

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Enforcement, Trade Marks Ordinance 2001, Customs Act 1969 

 

1. Introduction 

Trademark is name, sign, mark, smell or a sound distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking 

from goods and services of other undertakings, it is required to be non-descriptive and distinctive as it 

losses its distinctiveness when registered owner of trademark does not take speedy and prompt action 

against its infringement. The registered owner of trademark may avail administrative, civil, criminal 

procedures, provisional and border measures for protection of his registered trademark. Border 

measures of trademark enforcement is an administrative method, implemented through administrative 

customs authority of Pakistan, Malaysia and USA. Border measures of trademark enforcement runs 

under Customs Act 1969 and Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 in Pakistan, under Customs Act 1967 and 

Trade Descriptions Act 2011 in Malaysia and under Tariff Act 1930 and Lanham Trademark Act 1946 

in USA.  

It is pertinent to mention here that Paris Convention of World Intellectual Property Organization 

(WIPO) is the first International Treaty containing provisions about border measures of Intellectual 

Property (IP) enforcement. Article 9 of Paris Convention states that exported and imported goods 

bearing an unlawful trademark or trade name for the purpose of deceiving customers of products or 

services should be seized in all countries of the union on the request of competent authority, public 

prosecutor, or on the request and complaint of an interested party under domestic legislation. It further 

states that if seizure is not allowed and not available under domestic legislation of the country, 

prohibition on importation and exportation may be invoked and if this remedy is also not available then 

any expedient, adequate, and sufficient remedy could be invoked which is available under domestic 

legislation and countries of the union are required to take steps to amend domestic law as early as 

possible to make it in conformity with Paris Convention. 

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade 

Organization (WTO) also contains provisions related to border measures of IP enforcement in member 

states of WTO. Articles 54-56 of TRIPS state that border measures of IP enforcement are required to be 

implemented and enforced in a way to ensure proportionality, no compensation for defendant, no 

further harm to registered IP right holder and must not be contrary to constitutional requirements of 

member states of WTO. If legal proceedings are proved against infringer, consignee, and Importer of 

goods, the customs authority of member states of WTO may be asked to destruct and disposed of goods 

outside the course of trade to avoid further harm to IP right holder at the market place.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

57 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Border measure is required to be adopted when there is likelihood of importation and exportation of 

infringed goods which contains identical infringed trademark. Thus, the purpose of border measure is 

to prevent importation and exportation of suspected infringed goods through the customs authority on 

its own or on an application and complaint of the registered trademark owner. Article 52 of TRIPS 

states that the customs authority may suspend importation and exportation of suspected infringed goods 

for 10 days which can be maximized into 21 days and in case if applicant failed to start legal 

proceedings against an infringer, consignee, and importer of goods, the customs authority is required to 

release goods. When the customs authority releases seized goods, it is required to inform the applicant 

as well as the importer regarding the action. 

After comparative analysis of border measures of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and 

USA, it is found that the owner of the registered trademark is required to apply directly to Collector of 

Customs for seizure of suspected infringed goods in Pakistan and the registered trademark owner is 

required to apply before the registrar of trademark for the prevention of import and export of suspected 

infringed goods in Malaysia as in USA the registered trademark owner is required to submit his details 

and details of his registered trademark and prescribed goods to the United States Custom and Border 

Protection Agency immediately after registration and there is no need to submit details and complaint 

time and again to customs authority thus it is suggested that the registered trademark owner should be 

required to furnish his details and details of his registered trademark and prescribed goods or services 

before the customs authority immediately after registration in Pakistan to avoid inconvenience on the 

part of registered trademark owner and for prompt, speedy, expedient action by customs authority to 

protect rights of registered trademark owners. 

 

2. Border Measures of Trademark Enforcement under International Conventions  

Counterfeit trademark goods are those goods which bear trademark without authorization and which is 

identical to trademark validly registered in respect of such goods or which cannot be distinguished in 

its essential aspects from such trademark in question under law of importation country (Peng, 1997; 

Schechter, 1927).
 
 

Before entering into force of TRIPS Agreement in 1995, Paris Convention was the first International 

Treaty contains border measures’ provision. Article 9 of Paris Convention states that
: 
(1) All goods 

unlawfully bearing a trademark or trade name shall be seized on importation into those countries of the 

Union where such mark or trade name is entitled to legal protection. (2) Seizure shall likewise be 

affected in the country where the unlawful affixation occurred or in the country into which the goods 

were imported. (3) Seizure shall take place at the request of the public prosecutor, or any other 

competent authority, or any interested party, whether a natural person or a legal entity, in conformity 

with the domestic legislation of each country. (4) The authorities shall not be bound to effect seizure of 

goods in transit. (5) If the legislation of a country does not permit seizure on importation, seizure shall 

be replaced by prohibition of importation or by seizure inside the country. (6) If the legislation of a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

58 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

country permits neither seizure on importation nor prohibition of importation nor seizure inside the 

country, then, until such time as the legislation is modified accordingly, these measures shall be 

replaced by the actions and remedies available in such cases to nationals under the law of such country 

(A 9, Paris Convention 1883; Bodenhausen, 1968). 

Article 9 of Paris Convention contains same details as are contained in articles 51 to 60 under TRIPS 

Agreement. According of article 51 of TRIPS Agreement, member states are required to adopt a 

suitable procedure enabling right holder of trademark to apply with reasonable grounds for suspension 

of counterfeit trademark goods. Trademark owner is required to furnish sufficient details enabling 

competent authority to ascertain that applicant is real owner of trademark and suspected goods are 

counterfeit trademark goods. The competent authority of member state may also act on their own 

initiative without prior request to suspend release of goods based on prima facie evidence of 

infringement and right holder may be required to help authorities in ex-officio cases (Taubman, 2020; 

Busche, 2008). 

Article 52 of TRIPS Agreement deals with application procedure against counterfeit trademark goods. 

According to article 52 of TRIPS Agreement, member states must designate customs authority to 

receive application from right holder and act as per requirements of law of the land. The applicant must 

provide sufficient evidence without reasonable doubt that an infringement is occurred under relevant 

law of the land. The applicant is also required to provide detailed description of goods to customs 

authority. The competent authority is required to reply to applicant for acceptance or rejection of 

application and how long may they act against alleged infringed trademark goods (Johnson, 1996; 

Ruse-Khan, 2010). 

Article 53 of TRIPS Agreement deals with security or equivalent assurance. According to article 53 of 

TRIPS Agreement, customs authority of member state initiating border measures may demand 

applicant to furnish security or equal assurance that in case if apprehension of applicant is incorrect and 

importer, consignee, or owner of suspected seized goods suffer from action of customs authority, 

applicant is required to pay adequate compensation to defendant. Moreover, if trademark owner does 

not start legal proceedings within prescribed reasonable time, customs authority would release goods as 

well as security to owner, importer, or consignee (Gervais, 2021). 

Article 54 of TRIPS Agreement deals with notice of suspension. According to article 54 of TRIPS 

Agreement, importer of counterfeit trademark goods as well as trademark owner applied for suspension 

to release goods would be notified. Trademark owner would then be allowed to start legal proceedings 

against importer, consignee, and owner of counterfeit trademark goods within prescribed reasonable 

time otherwise customs authorities of member states are designated to release goods to importer, 

consignee, or owner of goods (Taubman, 2020). 

Article 55 of TRIPS Agreement deals with duration of suspension. According to article 55 of TRIPS 

Agreement, duration of suspension is 10 days which can be maximized into 20 days and cannot exceed 

31 calendar days. In case if applicant fails to start legal proceedings, customs authority is required to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

59 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

release goods and when customs authority releases seized goods, it is required to inform applicant and 

importer regarding the action (Seuba, 2010). 

Article 56 of TRIPS Agreement deals with indemnification of importer and owner of goods provides 

that: “Relevant authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant to pay the importer, the 

consignee and the owner of the goods appropriate compensation for any injury caused to them through 

the wrongful detention of goods or through the detention of goods released pursuant to Article 55”. 

Article 57 of TRIPS Agreement deals with right of inspection and information. According to articles 56 

and 57 of TRIPS Agreement, when legal proceedings start after seizure of counterfeit trademark goods 

by customs authority, defendant should be allowed to avail opportunity of judicial review for 

modification or suspension order of seized goods and competent authority may ask applicant to provide 

security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect defendant, but it should not be in a manner to deter 

applicant unreasonably from having recourse to these procedures. The competent authority may also 

ask applicant to pay compensation to third party whose interests have been affected due to seizure of 

alleged infringed goods or due to delay in taking legal action (Gervais, 2005; Seuba, 2009). 

Moreover, subject to protection of confidential information, right of inspection and right of information 

regarding infringed goods and suspended goods are available to right holder to substantiate his claim 

and to defendant for preparing his defense. All member states are required to make rules that in case if 

alleged infringement is proved, distribution channel should be traced and should be taken into legal 

course of action (Daśko, 2014; Ilias, 2008). 

Article 58 of TRIPS Agreement deals with ex officio actions. According to article 58 of TRIPS 

Agreement, customs authority of member state is designated to act against suspected counterfeit 

trademark goods on its own initiative under law of the land or on application directly received from 

trademark owner or received through judicial or administrative authorities of member states if they 

have prima facie evidence. The competent authority may ask right holder to provide sufficient details to 

act against counterfeit trademark goods. The competent authority acting border measures ex officio are 

exempted from remedial measures if acted in good faith (Kumar, 2009). 

Article 59 of TRIPS Agreement deals with remedies. The competent authority would order for 

destruction or disposal of goods outside the course of trade if apprehension over goods proved beyond 

reasonable doubt against defendant. In case if proceedings upon suspected counterfeit trademark goods 

are not proved prima facie against defendant, competent authority would order for release of goods. If 

legal proceedings are proved against infringer, customs authority may be asked to destruct and dispose 

of goods outside the course of trade to avoid further harm to right holder at market place. The 

competent authority may not allow re-exportation of suspected goods after removing affixed 

trademarks from suspected goods except in exceptional circumstances decided by the competent 

authority in public interest (Trainer, 1993). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

60 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Article 60 of TRIPS Agreement deals with De Minimis Imports. According to article 60 of TRIPS 

Agreement, apart from general principle of border measures enforced through customs authority of 

member state against counterfeit trademark goods, customs authority is not empowered to seize 

counterfeit trademark goods destined for exportation and are in transit as well as De Minimis Imports 

which are goods available in traveler’s luggage. Normally there are no rules for traveler’s luggage but 

in some countries, there are rules under principle of No Tolerance Policy. It is pertinent to mention that 

parallel imports do not come under the ambit of infringement thus customs authority not authorized to 

act against them (Kumar, 2009). 

 

3. Border Measures of Trademark Enforcement in Pakistan
 

If the owner of registered trademark suspects or he is in doubt that infringed goods are about to and 

near to arrive in Pakistan through trade importation, he may give a notice and inform to the customs 

officer to treat suspected goods as an infringed goods and the owner of registered trademark is required 

to must mention place and time of arrival of goods. The owner of registered trademark is required to 

submit and furnish an undertaking containing a notice acknowledging that in case if apprehension of an 

applicant is incorrect, he would be asked and required to compensate owner of suspected goods, 

importer and consignee of those goods for their loss and for that purpose, complainant is required to 

furnish security or an equivalent assurance to customs authority at the time of complaint (SS 53-55 

Trade Marks Ordinance 2001). 

The complaint against suspected infringed trademark goods is required to be made before Customs 

Officer in accordance with statutory requirements of Customs Act 1969 and Trade Marks Ordinance 

2001. In one of the cases, Messrs Reckitt and Colman Limited appointed Messrs Reckitt and Benckiser 

as its sole agent for import, selling, and distributing its products. Mortein brand of insecticide spray 

being shipped by Reckitt and Colman Overseas to Reckitt and Benckiser Pakistan. Messrs Reckitt and 

Benckiser issued letter to Collector of Customs in Pakistan to stop parallel imports of Mortein brand.  

Matter went to Appellate Board, which held that letter issued by the respondent was not in accordance 

with sections 53 to 55 of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 as section 53 of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 

requires registered trademark owner to give a notice to Collector of Customs accompanied by 

undertaking to indemnify. Section 54 of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 states that trademark owner 

would compensate consignee, importer, and owner of goods in case of damage due to wrongful 

suspension and authority of customs may ask the owner of registered trademark to provide an 

expedient and adequate security which would not be as such to deter recourse of border measures under 

section 55 of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001. Thus, the complaint by the respondent was out of statutory 

requirements which are required to be fulfilled therefore, authority of customs cannot invoke section 15 

of Customs Act 1969 against an application and complaint made in contradiction of sections 53 to 55 

of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 hence there is no case of infringement of trademark (Collector of 

Customs v Messrs Decent Autos, 2015). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

61 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The applicant who is registered trademark owner is required to submit and pay security but when 

applicant has submitted an insufficient security and compensation amount is higher than that, the 

Federal Government of Pakistan is required to pay remaining amount to infringer, consignee, and 

importer of seized suspected infringed goods and ask the applicant to pay the remaining amount 

balance to the Federal Government of Pakistan thus in this case, the Federal Government of Pakistan is 

liable to loss, damage, destruction or delay due to seizure or failure to seize or release of suspected 

infringed trademark goods (S 202 Customs Act 1969). 

If Collector of Customs reasonably believes that there are sufficient grounds to suspect that imported 

goods are infringed goods, he is required to seize them and put them in secured place. Thereafter, he is 

required to notify the applicant and the owner of trademark, the identity of goods and give full name 

and address of the importer. Thereafter, the applicant is required to start legal proceedings against the 

importer within 10 days from the day of receiving the notice or such other time as extended by the 

collector of customs otherwise the collector of customs is not bound to continue seizing goods for 

indefinite time and he is required to release the seized goods to the importer, consignee or the owner of 

goods. The collector of customs is empowered to forfeit seized goods before start of legal proceedings 

by the applicant (SS 56-58 Trade Marks Ordinance 2001). 

The customs authority may only take an action against goods bearing counterfeited trademark under 

section 15 of Customs Act 1969 if there is prima facie evidence of an infringement of registered 

trademark. In one of the cases, the Deputy Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice to Zia 

Uddin Sheikh that goods bearing alleged and suspected infringed trademark “Ahmad” why not would 

be confiscated by custom authority and penal action would be followed. Mr. Ziauddin Sheikh filed a 

writ petition against the show cause notice of customs authority before Sindh High Court by taking a 

plea that though trademark “Ahmed” is registered with the name of Ahmed Foods Private Limited but 

he has been authorized importer and exporter of goods bearing trademark “Ahmed” for 16 years and 

the customs authority does not have any legal right to commence and start legal proceedings against 

him under section 15 of Customs Act 1969. 

Ahmed Foods Private Limited responded that authority of importation and exportation was revoked in 

2012 but the petitioner replied that the respondent did not have the authority to revoke his authority and 

it is illegal as who holds affairs of Ahmed Foods Private Limited is pending question before the Court 

of Law. Therefore, respected judges of Sindh High Court Mr. Justice S. M. Farooq Sheikh and 

Maqbool Babar held that the show cause notice issued by customs authority to the petitioner should 

immediately be withdrawn as there is no prima facie evidence that the petitioner has infringed the 

registered trademark of the respondent. Furthermore, the petitioner should freely be allowed to import 

and export goods bearing trademark “Ahmed” (Mian Ziauddin Shaikh v Federation of Pakistan, 2014). 

The Collector of Customs may release goods to consignee, importer, or the owner of suspected 

infringed trademark goods if (i) the applicant and registered trademark owner does not start legal 

proceedings within a prescribed time, or (ii) the applicant withdraws legal proceedings, or (iii) the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

62 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

applicant consents in writing to Collector of Customs that he does not suspect seized infringed 

trademark goods any more, or (iv) legal proceeding has started against importer, consignee and owner 

of suspected infringed trademark goods and the Court of Law orders for release of the seized goods, or 

(v) the Collector of Customs reasonably and sufficient cause to believes that there is no sufficient cause 

and ground to believe that confiscated and seized suspected infringed trademark goods are infringed 

goods (Khan, 2014). 

The Court of Law may order forfeiture or release of seized goods but the Court of Law is not 

empowered and authorized to order for importation and exportation of seized imported goods or for 

removing of trademarks which are affixed on counterfeited goods or for local sale of seized goods. If 

the Court of Law decides the matter in favor of the defendant, it may ask the plaintiff to compensate 

and pay damages to the importer, consignee and the owner of seized goods for losses they have 

suffered due to seizure. If the Court of Law orders for disposal of forfeited goods, the Collector of 

Customs is required to comply with orders of the Court of Law but he is not required to comply orders 

in a manner for removal of trademark from counterfeited trademark goods, or to facilitate exportation 

of imported seized goods or their local sale (Tanwiri, 2011).  

The registered trademark owner is required to start legal proceedings immediately after seizure of 

suspected counterfeited goods, and if verdict of the Court of Law is announced in favor of the 

registered trademark owner, he then is required to apply for implementation of the verdict of the Court 

of Law within 3 weeks and if the owner of trademark does not apply for the implementation of the 

verdict of the Court of Law within 3 weeks from the date of its making by the Court of Law, the 

Collector of Customs is required to release goods to consignee, importer, or the owner of such goods 

but the Collector of Customs may apply in the Court of Law for retaining control over suspected 

counterfeited goods if the disposal, release or any action against seized goods is required (SS 59-63 

Trade Marks Ordinance 2001). 

In one of the cases, Haji Muhammad Nabi claimed that he has been using trademark “FRUTTI” for a 

long period of time thus he has legal right to use it and take all its potential benefits during trade and no 

one has right to infringe and counterfeit his registered trademark right. Akhtar Muhammad started 

using trademark “FRUTTI” for his product of juice powder. Haji Muhammad Nabi applied against 

importation of counterfeited goods of Akhtar Muhammad before the Collector of Customs. Application 

was subsequently rejected by the Collector of Customs therefore appellant Akhtar Muhammad could 

legally import his product of juice powder under trademark “FRUTTI”.  

Thereafter, Haji Muhammad Nabi adopted civil procedure of trademark enforcement and applied 

against infringement of his trademark “FRUTTI” before the concerned District Court and adopted 

provisional measures of trademark enforcement and asked the Court of Law to issue temporary 

injunction against defendant to prevent further infringement of his trademark. The concerned District 

Court allowed interim injunction and ordered Akhtar Muhammad to stop further use of trademark 

“FRUTTI”. Mr. Akhtar Muhammad went to Lahore High Court and applied against decision of the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

63 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

District Court where Lahore High Court dismissed orders passed by District Court and gave a decision 

in favor of appellant Akhtar Muhammad on a ground that trademark “FRUTTI” is registered in favor of 

Akhtar Muhamad therefore importation of goods containing legal registered trademark cannot be 

stopped and no border measure can be taken against goods containing registered trademark (Messrs 

Akhtar Muhammad and Brother through Proprieter v Haji Muhammad Nabi and Brother, 2011).  

The Collector of Customs is eligible to make and prescribe regulations for notification in respect to 

process of forfeiture, seizure, release, and disposal and he may require the applicant to furnish and 

submit evidence of his ownership and he may also require the applicant to pay fee to cover 

administrative costs (SS 63-66 Trade Marks Ordinance 2001). 

The custom authority may ask the importer all necessary information about his imported goods. In one 

of the cases, Petitioner Kashif Naseem is an importer of goods, who filed a writ petition before Sindh 

High Court against custom authority that his products are protected under IP laws and he is not under 

obligation to disclose information about his goods. Justice Faisal Arab and the Chief Justice of Sindh 

High Court Sabihuddin Ahmad held that protection of imported goods under IP laws cannot be used as 

a shield to resort to under-invoicing and deprive the ex-chequer of custom duties and charge at actual 

transaction value. 

The Court of Law further held that it is duty of an importer to deliver information about his imports so 

that custom authority may proceed smoothly with its obligation to ascertain actual transaction value as 

withholding necessary information that solely rests with importer or within his exclusive reach would 

recoil adversely upon intentions of an importer. The Court of Law held that the petitioner instead of 

providing necessary information as sought by custom authority for determining transactional value of 

imported goods unduly rushed to High Court and filed instant petition therefore, his petition is 

dismissed and he was asked to furnish information to custom authority (Kashif Naseem v the 

Federation of Pakistan, 2008). 

 

4. Border Measures of Trademark Enforcement in Malaysia 
 

According to border measures of trademark enforcement in Malaysia, if counterfeited infringed 

trademark goods are about to be imported in Malaysia, the registered trademark owner or his agent are 

required to inform the registrar through written application complaint with documented evidence and 

relevant information with payment of prescribed fee. The registrar of trademark either approve or 

disapprove written application complaint of the owner of trademark. The approval letter by the registrar 

of trademark upon application of the owner of trademark would remain intact for 60 days unless 

withdrawn by the applicant. Furthermore, the registrar of trademark may require the applicant to 

deposit and pay security to prevent abuse and to protect importer as well as to pay compensation for 

damages or to reimburse expenses likely to incur on seizure of counterfeiting infringed goods (Kandiah, 

2004).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

64 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Upon receiving the application complaint, the registrar of trademark is required to notify the authorized 

officer to prohibit import and export of counterfeiting infringed trademark goods into or from Malaysia 

and to confiscate, seize and detain them and seized goods are required to be stored at secured place by 

authorized officer and he is liable to inform the registrar of trademark regarding it (Chong, 1998). 

Authorized Officer for implementation of border measures of trademark enforcement is Custom Officer 

under Customs Act 1967 or any Public Officer appointed by the Minister, to work in Intellectual 

Property Corporation of Malaysia (My IPO). Authorized Office may issue a notice to registrar, 

importer, and registered trademark owner which precludes that if within a prescribed time, applicant 

does not start legal proceedings against counterfeiter, Authorized Officer is empowered to release 

suspected seized and confiscated goods. It is pertinent to mention here that prescribed time may be 

extended on request of applicant within 2 working days (S 31 Customs Act 1967). 

Authorized Officer may give permission to importer or applicant to inspect seized and confiscated 

goods if they give surety that they will provide a sample to the registrar and they will not damage 

seized goods. The seized goods may be forfeited and disposed-off before institution of legal 

proceedings if it is consented by importer and he gives notice to the registrar to that effect and the 

Court of Law on application of importer may order for release of seized goods or may order for 

forfeiture of goods and thereafter for disposal of goods (Khadijah, 2016). 

The registrar of trademark may issue notices for release of seized goods if legal proceedings has not 

been instituted against importer within prescribed time or if applicant consented for release of seized 

goods. Aggrieved party may apply in the Court of Law after release of seized goods for compensation 

and the Court of Law may order applicant to pay compensation to importer for damages and suffering, 

he has faced. It is pertinent to mention here that compensation granted to aggrieved party if exceeds is 

due upon the applicant (SS 70C-70P Trade Marks Act 976).  

The minister may order to prohibit importation of goods, bearing false trade description or false trade 

indication to stop them from importation and any person commits or induces commission of an offence 

of false trade description or false trade indication outside the territory of Malaysia from Malaysia is an 

offender under provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 2011 (SS 26-27 Trade Descriptions Act 2011). 

 

5. Border Measures of Trademark Enforcement in USA
 

According to border measures of trademark enforcement in the United States of America (USA), any 

article of goods which bears trademark which is protected under International Convention for 

protection of trademarks if imported in USA and causes confusion in the mind of the customer whether 

article is manufactured in USA or not or whether it is manufactured at a place where it is actually 

manufactured requires an entry at customhouse of USA and required to be recorded in books kept at 

the Department of Treasury (S 42 Lanham Trademark Act 1946).  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

65 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

After registration process of trademark before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 

the applicant is required to submit description of trademark and description of prescribed goods or 

services under the registered trademark and details of the owner of trademark and details of the users of 

trademark before the United States Custom and Border Protection Agency, which is responsible for 

enforcement of border measures under the United States Department of Homeland Security. The 

primary duties of the United States Custom and Border Protection Agency is to prevent entrance of 

terrorists and weapons into USA and it is also responsible to protect IP rights of owners and its users 

while protecting businesses from IP theft and to undergo border measures of trademark enforcement in 

USA (Lee, 2012). 

After making a comparative analysis of border measures of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, 

Malaysia and USA, it is found that in Pakistan, the registered trademark owner is required to directly 

apply before the collector of customs against importation of suspected goods and in Malaysia the 

owner is required to apply before the registrar of trademark, thereafter the registrar is required to direct 

the authorized customs officer to take action against suspected goods and in USA the registered 

trademark owner is required to submit his details and details of the registered trademark and prescribed 

goods or services to the United States Custom and Border Protection Agency immediately after the 

registration, thereafter the authorized agency would take prompt action in case of suspect and there is 

no need for the trademark owner to worry about importation and exportation of suspected goods as the 

authorized agency would do the rest. It is therefore recommended that this system should be adopted in 

Pakistan and the registered trademark owner should be directed to furnish his details and details of the 

registered trademark and prescribed goods or services to the customs authority, so that in case of 

suspect the customs authority would take prompt action against infringed goods which is better for 

border measures of trademark enforcement in Pakistan. 

It is pertinent to mention here that there are certain authorities created under the United States Custom 

and Border Protection Agency for smooth implementation of IP rights generally and border measures 

of trademark enforcement specially in USA. The IP Help Desk is created to answer questions to the 

public, business entities, right owners and importers, it is specially established to receive and lodge 

allegations of the infringement of IP rights in USA. The report can be lodged by the public or by the 

right holder or by the trade association or by the law enforcement agency or by the government. The 

report can be lodged online through website or can be lodged through phone line (Agency, 2012). 

The IP Restricted Merchandise Branch is formed to oversee e-recordation program and to provide 

determination and rulings over the infringement of IP rights and to give answers of legal questions for 

enforcement procedure of IP in USA. The IP Right Policy and Program Board is formed to provide 

directions to the US Custom and Border Protection Agency for smooth implementation of border 

measures and the National IP Coordination Center is formed to lodge complaints of IP theft (Agency, 

2016). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

66 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Whether the registered trademark is recorded at the United States Custom and Border Protection 

Agency by the owner of trademark or not, if the customs authority has reason to believe that 

counterfeiting trademark has been importing to USA, it can take a serious action against it and seize 

suspected goods and forfeit it. After the seizure, the secretary of the United States Custom and Border 

Protection Agency may notify the registered trademark owner and the accused. Thereafter, the accused 

would be required to remove trademark from the packaging of goods and if removal of trademark is not 

sufficient to protect the registered trademark right, goods bearing counterfeiting trademark may be 

destroyed or used by the Federal Government (S 526 Tariff Act 1913 & S 1526 United States Code 

1925). 

 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations 

In Pakistan, the registered trademark owner is required to apply directly to the collector of customs 

appointed under the Customs Act 1969 for seizure of suspected infringed goods. The applicant is 

required to give details of the suspected goods, time and day of arrival or departure of suspected good. 

In Malaysia, the registered trademark owner is required to apply before the registrar of trademark for 

the prevention of import and export of suspected infringed goods through the authorized customs 

officer under the Customs Act 1967. In USA, the registered trademark owner is required to submit his 

details and details of the registered trademark and prescribed goods to the United States Custom and 

Border Protection Agency immediately after registration of trademark and the United States Custom 

and Border Protection Agency is responsible for implementation of border measures in USA. 

After comparative analysis of border measures of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and 

USA, it is found that USA system of border measures to give details of the owner and the registered 

trademark immediately after registration is good as the owner does not have to worry about import and 

export of counterfeiting goods as this work is smoothly done by the United States Custom and Border 

Protection Agency. It is therefore recommended that in Pakistan this requirement should be prescribed 

where the registered owner of trademark should be compelled to furnish his details and details of his 

registered trademark and prescribed goods or services before the customs authority immediately after 

registration, thereupon the customs authority would promptly act on importation and exportation of 

counterfeiting trademark goods.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

67 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Agency The United States Customs and Border Protection. (2012). CBP Enforcement of Intellectual 

Property Rights. 

Agency The United States Customs and Border Protection. (2016). Intellectual Property Rights 

Enforcement. CBP Publication # 0136-0311. The United States of America. 

Bodenhausen, G. H. C. (1968). Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of 

Industrial Property, as Revised at Stockholm in 1967. United international bureaux for the 

protection of intellectual property. 

Busche, J., Stoll, P. T., & Arend, K. (Eds.). (2008). WTO-trade-related aspects of intellectual property 

rights. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004145672.i-910 

Chong, J. W. C. (1998). Malaysian Intellectual Property Laws and their Compliance with the TRIPs 

Agreement. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 1(6), 1003-1016. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.1998.tb00046.x 

Collector of Customs v Messrs Decent Autos. (2015). The Customs Appealte Tribunal, Pakistan 

Company and Tax Law Reports (p. 945). 

Customs Act Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1969 Act IV. (n.d.). Customs Act Malaysia 1967 Act 235. 

Daśko, N. (2014). (rev.): Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights through Border Measures: Law 

and Practice in the EU, Olivier Vrins and Marius Schneider (Eds.), Oxford 2012. The Copernicus 

Journal of Political Studies, 2(6). 

Gervais, D. (2005). “Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: A TRIPS Compatible 

Approach”. Michigan State Law Review, 137. 

Gervais, D. J. (2021). TRIPS Meets Big Data. Big Data and Global Trade Law (M. Burri, Ed.). 

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108919234.010 

Ilias, S., & Fergusson, I. F. (2008). Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade. Nova 

Publishers. 

Johnson, D. R., & Post, D. (1996). Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law 

Review, 1367-1402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390 

Kandiah, P. (2004). Intellectual Property Enforcement in Malaysia. Kandiah & Associates Sdn Bhd, 

Kuala Lampur, Malaysia 2004. 

Kashif Naseem v the Federation of Pakistan. (2008). The Sindh High Court, West Civil Law Reports (p. 

569). 

Khadijah, M. (2016). Prevention of Trademark Counterfeiting through Intellectual Property 

Enforcement System in Malaysia. The Debt Financing and Financing Risk Persistency (p. 82). 

Khan, Z. (2014). Trademark in Pakistan. Khursheed Khan & Associates, Karachi, Pakistan. 

Kumar, S. P. (2009). Border Enforcement of IP Rights against in Transit Generic Pharmaceuticals: An 

Analysis of Character and Consistency. European Intellectual Property Review, Forthcoming. 

Lanham Trademark Act United States of America 1946. (n.d.). 

https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004145672.i-910
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.1998.tb00046.x
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108919234.010
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022 

68 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lee, J. (2012). Is the US International Trade Commission Protectionist—A Comparative Study of 

Border Enforcement Measures. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 40, 593. 

Messrs Akhtar Muhammad and Brother through Proprieter v Haji Muhammad Nabi and Brother. 

(2011). The Balochistan High Court, Civil Law Digest, 1730. 

Mian Ziauddin Shaikh v Federation of Pakistan. (2014). The Sindh High Court, Sindh Law Journal, 

877. 

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. (1883). World Intellectual Property 

Organization. 

Peng, H. L., & Chen, S. Y. (1997). Trademark shape recognition using closed contours. Pattern 

Recognition Letters, 18(8), 791-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8655(97)00050-0 

Ruse-Khan, H. G. (2010). A Trade Agreement Creating Barriers to International Trade: ACTA Border 

Measures and Goods in Transit. Am. U. Int’l L. Rev., 26, 645. 

Schechter, F. I. (1927). The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection. Harvard Law Review, 813-833. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1330367 

Seuba, X. (2009). Border Measures Concerning Goods Allegedly Infringing Intellectual Property 

Rights. op. cit. 

Seuba, X. (2010). Free Trade of Pharmaceutical Products: The Limits of Intellectual Property 

Enforcement at the Border. Geneva: ICTSD. https://doi.org/10.7215/IP_IP_20100426 

Tanwiri, J. A. (2011). Special Topic Report: Pakistan. Asian Patent Attorneys Association, Manila, 

Philippines. 

Tariff Act The United States of America 1930 Act 114-138. (n.d.). 

Taubman, A., Wager, H., & Watal, J. (Eds.). (2020). A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement. 

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108883511 

Trade Descriptions Act Malaysia 2011 Act 730. (n.d.). 

Trade Marks Act Malaysia 1976 Act 176. (n.d.). 

Trade Marks Ordinance Islamic Republic of Pakistan. (2001). 

Trainer, T. P. (1993). US Customs Adherence to NAFTA (GATT) Border Enforcement Provisions: A 

New Framework or Minor Modifications. Fed. Cir. BJ, 3, 389. 

United States Code (Customs Duties) The United States of America 1925 Title 19. (n.d.). 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8655(97)00050-0
https://doi.org/10.2307/1330367
https://doi.org/10.7215/IP_IP_20100426
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108883511

