Building a cross-border brand enforcement strategy: a practical guide for Australian business

Registered trade marks rights are only as valuable as your willingness to enforce them. Enforcement is where rights become commercially real—and for Australian businesses operating in an increasingly global marketplace. And enforcement needs to be strategic, systematic and territorially co-ordinated. The following framework is designed for brand owners that are serious about protecting what they have built, across every channel and every market where their brand is at risk.

Step 1: Audit your existing rights 

First, you need a complete and accurate picture of your registered rights. This sounds obvious, but many businesses, including sophisticated ones, are operating from a fragmented picture and incomplete understanding of their own portfolio. Trade marks registered in the wrong classes, outdated coverage of retired brands or logo treatments, and so on. These types of gaps are quite common and accumulate over time. Map every registration against the jurisdictions where you sell, manufacture, source and export. Identify where your registered rights exist, where they do not, and where infringement is most likely to occur. This audit is not a one-time exercise, ideally it should be revisited whenever you enter a new market, launch a new product line, or observe a new category of infringing activity.

Step 2: Close the territorial gaps

The most frustrating moment in IP enforcement is discovering that infringement is occurring in a market where you have no registered rights. At that point, your options are limited and expensive. The time to secure international protection is before you enter a market — not after you have found a counterfeiter operating in it. The Madrid Protocol allows Australian businesses to file a single international application through IP Australia and designate protection in over 130 countries. Prioritise the jurisdictions that matter most commercially: the US, EU, UK and China represent the highest-volume markets for both legitimate sales and counterfeit goods. Tip: a registered right in China can be particularly valuable. Not only because Chinese manufacturers are a significant source of counterfeit goods globally, but because Chinese platforms and customs authorities will only act on infringement complaints backed by a Chinese registration.

Step 3: Use Customs Recordal programs —one of the most underused tools available

Customs recordal is arguably the most powerful and most overlooked enforcement mechanism available to Australian IP rights holders. Most major trading nations operate systems that allow registered trade mark and, in some jurisdictions, design and patent holders to record their IP rights with the relevant customs authority. Once recorded, customs officers are empowered—and in some cases required—to detain and seize shipments of suspected counterfeit or infringing goods at the border, before they ever reach consumers.

In Australia, the Australian Border Force (ABF) administers the Notice of Objection scheme under the Trade Marks Act 1995 and Copyright Act 1968. Rights holders can lodge a notice with ABF identifying their registered IP and providing information to assist officers in identifying infringing goods. ABF can then detain suspect shipments, notify the rights holder, and allow the rights holder to inspect the goods and decide whether to pursue seizure and forfeiture.

Internationally, the equivalent programs include:

‍United States: US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates an IP recordation system through its e-Recordation portal. Once recorded, CBP officers at all ports of entry are equipped with information to identify counterfeit shipments. The US system is particularly effective given the volume of goods entering through major ports like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.

‍European Union: The EU Customs Regulation (EU No. 608/2013) provides a unified framework for IP rights holders to file Applications for Action (AFAs) with any EU member state customs authority. A single AFA can cover all EU member states simultaneously, making it highly efficient for rights holders targeting the European market.

‍United Kingdom: Post-Brexit, the UK operates its own customs IP recordal system, administered by HMRC. Rights holders exporting to or concerned about infringing goods entering the UK market should maintain a separate UK recordal.

‍China: GACC (General Administration of Customs of China) operates an IP recordal system that is particularly valuable for rights holders concerned about counterfeit goods being manufactured and exported from China. A Chinese customs recordal, backed by a Chinese trade mark or patent registration, gives you the ability to work with Chinese customs authorities to intercept infringing shipments before they leave the country — stopping the problem at its source.

The practical value of customs recordal programs compounds over time. As rights holders build a track record of successful seizures, customs authorities develop a more refined understanding of what infringing goods look like, making future detections more likely. There is also a powerful deterrent effect: suppliers and manufacturers who know that a brand is actively enforcing at the border are significantly less likely to continue producing or shipping counterfeit goods.

Step 4: Deploy platform enforcement systematically

Online marketplace and social media enforcement should run in parallel with customs and legal strategies. The major platforms have invested heavily in IP enforcement infrastructure, and rights holders who enrol in and actively use these programs gain a meaningful commercial advantage. Amazon Brand Registry (requiring a registered trade mark), eBay's VeRO program, Meta's Rights Manager, TikTok's IP complaint system, and Alibaba's IPP Platform are all available to enrolled rights holders and can result in listing removal within 24 to 72 hours. Because these programs are free to join and operate at scale, they are often the first line of response to new infringement — particularly for businesses dealing with high volumes of copycat listings across multiple storefronts.

The key discipline here is systematic monitoring. Manual searching is too slow and too incomplete. Automated brand monitoring tools such as Red Points, Corsearch, MarkMonitor and others continuously scan marketplaces, social media and the broader web for unauthorised use of your marks, images and product designs, alerting your team in real time. The cost of these tools is almost always lower than the revenue lost to undetected infringement.

Step 5: Use cease and desist correspondence strategically

A well-drafted cease and desist letter, sent by a qualified IP attorney on legal letterhead and citing specific registered rights, resolves the majority of commercial IP disputes without ever reaching a courtroom. Many infringers — particularly smaller businesses and online sellers — are unaware that they are infringing, or have been misled by their suppliers about the legitimacy of the goods they are selling. A firm, professionally drafted letter citing your registration details, the nature of the infringement and the consequences of non-compliance will, in many cases, produce a prompt response.

Cease and desist correspondence serves additional purposes beyond immediate resolution. It creates a written record that the infringer was put on notice — which is directly relevant to the quantum of damages if litigation becomes necessary. It can also be used to flush out the supply chain: asking an online seller to identify their supplier can yield intelligence about the manufacturer or importer behind a broader counterfeiting operation.

For international enforcement, cease and desist letters are most effective when sent by a local attorney in the infringer's jurisdiction. A letter from an Australian firm to a Chinese manufacturer, for example, carries significantly more weight when co-signed by a Chinese IP attorney with knowledge of local law and enforcement norms.

Step 6: Pursue Domain Name Disputes Where Relevant

Counterfeit and infringing operations increasingly operate through sophisticated-looking websites. And often with domain names designed to mimic legitimate brands. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), administered by WIPO and other accredited providers, offers a relatively fast and cost-effective mechanism for trade mark holders to recover domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to their registered mark and being used in bad faith.

UDRP proceedings are not litigation, they are administrative proceedings conducted on paper, typically resolved within 60 days, and substantially cheaper than court action. For Australian businesses discovering counterfeit websites targeting their customers, a UDRP complaint is often the fastest way to shut down the operation at its foundation.

For domains under the .au country-code top-level domain, auDA (the .au Domain Administration) operates equivalent dispute resolution procedures. Rights holders with Australian trade mark registrations have standing to challenge .au domain registrations that infringe their marks.

Step 7: Escalate to formal legal action when the stakes warrant it

Platform takedowns, customs recordal, cease and desist letters and domain disputes resolve most commercial IP enforcement situations. But for high-value, persistent or commercially significant infringers—particularly those who have been put on notice and continued infringing—formal legal proceedings are sometimes necessary and appropriate.

In Australia, trade mark, design and patent infringement matters are heard in either the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief (including urgent interlocutory injunctions), award compensatory damages or account of profits, and make orders for delivery up and destruction of infringing goods. For rights holders who have built a strong evidentiary record through prior enforcement steps, Federal Court proceedings can move efficiently and with strong prospects of success.

Internationally, litigation strategy should be coordinated with local IP counsel in each relevant jurisdiction. In some markets, particularly the US, the prospect of litigation, and the potential for substantial damages awards, is a significant deterrent in itself. Many disputes that cannot be resolved through administrative channels in other jurisdictions settle promptly when US litigation is threatened or commenced.

Bringing it together: the enforcement posture that deters

The goal of a cross-border IP enforcement strategy is not simply to win individual disputes. It is to establish a reputation in the market as a rights holder that actively defends its brand and registered trade marks. Counterfeiters and infringers are commercially rational actors. They gravitate toward brands that do not enforce, and they avoid brands that do. A visible, consistent and multi-layered enforcement posture: combining customs recordal, platform monitoring, cease and desist activity and selective litigation sends a clear signal to the market that infringement of your IP carries real consequences.

The businesses that benefit most from their IP registrations are those who treat enforcement as a business process: systematic, well-resourced, and built into the ordinary rhythm of how they manage their brand and their commercial relationships. If your current enforcement activity is reactive, responding to infringement only when it becomes too much to tolerate, it is worth asking whether a more proactive posture could better protect the investment you have made in building your brand, your designs, and your technology.