Research and analysis

HMRC intellectual property rights Application for Action Research Report

Published 26 February 2026

Intellectual property (IP) rights Application for Action (AFA) Research.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Research Report 858.

Research conducted by Ipsos between July and September 2025. Prepared by Ipsos (Alice Haywood, Jacob Scalco and Amanda Stevens) for HMRC.

Disclaimer: The views in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of HMRC.

1. Glossary of key terms

This report uses terminology and abbreviations that are explained below.

Terms	Definitions
Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG)	A UK trade association that represents businesses and works to combat intellectual property crime through collaboration with government and law enforcement agencies.
Application for Action (AFA)	A free service provided by HMRC that allows businesses holding registered intellectual property to request that UK customs authorities detain suspected counterfeit or infringing goods at the border.
Bill of Lading	A detailed legal document issued by a carrier to a shipper. It lists the type, quantity, and destination of the goods being carried.
Brand protection	The strategies and actions a business takes to prevent its brand identity, reputation, and intellectual property from being used illegally by others.
Cease-and-desist letter	A formal letter sent to an individual or business demanding that they stop a specific activity, in this context the infringement of an intellectual property right.
Civil action	A legal dispute between two parties, such as a rights holder and an infringer, which is resolved in a civil court. It often seeks to stop the infringing activity or claim financial damages.
Consignee	The person or company to whom a shipment of goods is being delivered.
Consignor	The person, business, or entity that sends or dispatches a shipment of goods.
Counterfeit goods	Goods, often of inferior quality, that are made and sold under another company’s brand name without the brand owner’s permission.
Criminal action	A legal action initiated by the state, for example through the police or Trading Standards, against a party for breaking the law. Penalties can include fines or imprisonment.
Customs recordal	Another term for an Application for Action, used to describe the process of formally recording intellectual property rights with customs authorities.
Design right	A type of intellectual property right that protects the overall visual appearance of a product, including its shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation.
Drop-shipping	A retail method where a seller takes customer orders but does not keep goods in stock. Instead, they transfer the orders and shipment details to a third party, such as a manufacturer or wholesaler, who then ships the goods directly to the customer.
Ex-officio Application for Action	In this context, it refers to customs detaining goods they suspect are counterfeit, even if the brand owner does not have an active Application for Action. Where an unregistered business is alerted about interception of potentially counterfeit good, they have 4 working days to submit an ‘ex-officio AFA’.
Grey trade or Parallel trade	The trade of genuine, non-counterfeit goods through distribution channels that are unofficial, unauthorised, or unintended by the original manufacturer.
Infringement	The act of using a protected intellectual property right without the permission of the rights holder. Counterfeiting is a form of trademark infringement.
Intellectual property (IP)	Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.
Intellectual Property Enforcement Portal (IPEP)	An online platform managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). It allows businesses to file and manage a single electronic Application for Action for all 27 EU member states.
Intellectual Property Office (IPO)	The official UK government body responsible for intellectual property rights, including the granting of patents, trademarks, and design rights.
Lapsed user	In the context of this study, a business that previously held an Application for Action which has expired and has not yet been renewed.
Online Brand Protection (OBP) service	A third-party service that businesses hire to monitor online platforms for intellectual property infringements. These services often use technology to detect and request the removal of counterfeit listings on behalf of the rights holder.
Patent	A type of intellectual property right that protects new inventions. It gives the owner the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the invention for a limited period.
Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU)	A specialist national police unit in the UK, funded by the Intellectual Property Office, which is dedicated to combatting serious and organised intellectual property crime.
Renewal window	The specific period of time before an Application for Action expires, during which the rights holder can apply to renew it. For the UK service, this is 30 days before the expiry date.
Rights holder	The individual, business, or legal entity that owns a registered intellectual property right, such as a trademark, design right, or patent.
Takedown notice	A formal request sent to an online service provider, such as a social media platform or e-commerce marketplace, to remove content that is infringing on an intellectual property right.
Test purchase	The process of buying a product to gather evidence. In this study, businesses used test purchases to confirm that suspected goods were counterfeit or to identify the seller.
Trademark	A type of intellectual property right that protects a brand identity. It is a sign, such as a name, word or logo, that distinguishes the goods or services of one business from those of another.
Trading Standards	A local government service in the UK that enforces a wide range of consumer protection laws, including those relating to counterfeit goods.

2. Executive summary

2.1 Research context

IP rights are essential for businesses to protect their innovations through registered trademarks, copyrights, designs and patents. However, enforcement of IP rights in the UK remains challenging, and financial losses are significant for both businesses via lost customer sales and the state via lost tax revenues. HMRC’s’ AFA process provides businesses with a monitoring mechanism to protect their IP at UK borders. However, despite the potential benefits, not all IP holders engage with AFA.

2.2 Objectives of the research

HMRC commissioned Ipsos to conduct research into the underlying reasons for engagement or lack of engagement with AFA. The research also focussed on businesses’ relationships with their IP rights, their experiences of counterfeiting, and both registered and lapsed businesses’ experiences with the AFA service. Finally, the research sought to understand development opportunities for the UK AFA service from the perspective of those who use it. The research findings will enable policymakers to design more targeted measures to improve the AFA process, strengthen IP enforcement, and better support businesses in protecting their intellectual assets.

2.3 Methodology

A qualitative methodology was used to investigate the experiences of IP rights holders who are either registered or not registered with the UK AFA service. A small number of interviews were also conducted with external representatives who sit explicitly within the IP and brand protection industry. This approach facilitated detailed exploration of a wide array of experiences and the underlying drivers behind them.

Overall, Ipsos conducted 30 in-depth interviews, 17 interviews with IP rights holders who are registered with the UK AFA service, 8 interviews with IP rights holders who are not registered with the UK AFA service, and 5 interviews with external representatives. The interviews were all conducted between 21 July 2025 and 2 September 2025 using Microsoft Teams.

2.4 Key findings

• IP registrations were viewed as key commercial mechanisms that protect revenue, brand image and consumer safety
• businesses’ understanding and capability to monitor and enforce against IP infringement increased in line with counterfeiting risk, tied to higher brand awareness and expanded product lines
• businesses felt counterfeiting quality and strategy had evolved significantly in recent years, driven primarily by the expansion of online shopping and diverse online marketplaces. Improved counterfeiter production quality and evasion tactics were also prevalent across sectors
• business impacts of counterfeiting went beyond direct commercial impact, impacting brand reputation and customer loyalty which were both hard to track and recover
• the UK AFA service was seen as extremely valuable since it is the sole monitoring system that prevents counterfeit goods from entering the UK in the first place, after which counterfeit goods become much harder to control
• goods’ detentions via the UK AFA also provide businesses with valuable counterfeiter intelligence which empowers businesses to build legal cases against the most impactful repeat infringer. This is unique when compared to other available monitoring and enforcement routes
• businesses were broadly satisfied with the UK AFA registration and goods’ detentions processes. They valued the responsiveness, knowledge and willingness to help from both the AFA registration team and Border agents
• however, a key frustration with the UK AFA service was the decline in interception rates which were seen to be considerably lower than within other EU and global market AFA services
• businesses who were not registered with the AFA service faced several barriers to registering, notably their lack of awareness about the service and perception that they did not face counterfeiting risk
• the HMRC service definition also activated a significant perception of risk for unregistered businesses regarding the scale of potential costs that businesses may incur, and mistrust regarding the mechanisms behind agent interceptions
• service improvement areas ranged from immediate needs to longer-term areas for development. Businesses most urgently wanted to see increases in UK interception rates, notifications from HMRC prior to AFA expiration to reduce the risk of lapsed registration, and upgrades to the service which enable businesses to view and edit information on their AFA, reducing their administrative burden

3. Research context, objectives and methodology

3.1 Research context

IP rights are essential for businesses to protect their innovations through registered trademarks, copyrights, designs and patents:

• trademarks protect distinctive signs such as words, logos, or slogans that identify a business’s goods or services and distinguish them from competitors
• copyright automatically protects original creative works as soon as they are produced, including written material, images, music, films, or software
• design rights protect the visual appearance or shape of a product, such as a surface pattern or product form, rather than how it works
• patents protect new inventions that are original, involve an inventive step, and can be made or used in industry, such as a mechanical component or medical device

However, enforcement of IP rights in the UK remains challenging. Financial losses in particular are known to be significant for both businesses via lost customer sales and for the state via lost tax revenues. Whilst HMRC’s AFA process provides businesses with a monitoring mechanism to protect their IP at UK borders, not all IP holders currently engage with AFA.

Insights into why some businesses engage, and others refrain, are seen as essential for enhancing AFA’s effectiveness. HMRC therefore commissioned Ipsos to conduct research into the underlying reasons for engagement or lack of engagement with AFA. The research findings will enable policymakers to design more targeted measures to improve the AFA process, strengthen IP enforcement, and better support businesses in protecting their intellectual assets.

3.2 Objectives of the research

The research aimed to deepen understanding of the challenges that IP rights holders face in protecting their IP through examining their engagement with the AFA service. Several specific research areas were set out, as follows:

• IP rights holders’ relationships with their IP
• the impact of counterfeiters on IP rights holders
• IP rights holders’ awareness of AFA
• IP rights holders’ experiences of AFA
• why some IP rights holders choose to engage with AFA and why others refrain
• barriers to applying for AFA

3.3 Methodology

Qualitative in-depth interviews were used to undertake this research. This qualitative methodology was chosen to gather insight and explore the research aims because:

• it offers an opportunity to explore in detail a range of experiences across relevant sub-groups and the differences or similarities between them
• it allows researchers to take these detailed and comparative insights and translate them into meaningful policy improvement

Ipsos conducted a total of 30 depth interviews (45 to 60 minutes long) with a variety of organisations. Of the 30 interviewed, 25 were businesses which held a range of IP rights, while 5 were external representatives that support businesses with their IP management. External representatives were included in the sample to explore the drivers behind why some businesses choose to outsource IP management, and also to learn from external representatives who sit explicitly within the IP and brand protection industry. Of the 25 businesses interviewed, 17 businesses held a UK AFA, while 8 did not. During recruitment, businesses that had previously held an AFA, but which had since lapsed, were also brought into the sample in limited numbers. This provided an opportunity to understand what caused businesses to lapse in their AFA registration, as well what intentions they had to re-register, if any.

All interviews were conducted between 21 July 2025 and 2 September 2025 using Microsoft Teams.

A comprehensive topic guide was developed to guide the interviews. The questions were typically open and allowed participants to talk in detail about their experiences. Interviewers guided and prompted participants where necessary to examine key topic areas. 

3.4 Analysis

Findings from the interviews were collated and analysed to draw out key themes throughout fieldwork. At the end of fieldwork, interview findings were filtered and further analysed across relevant subgroups and characteristics. This drew insight into specific business and external representative experiences, including analysis across different business sizes and across businesses holding different types of IP rights.

3.5 Sample and recruitment

A sample of 303 businesses registered with AFA, 694 businesses that are not registered with AFA, and 126 external representatives was supplied to Ipsos by HMRC. The sample of businesses that were not registered with AFA was sourced from the UK IP Office. Recruitment was guided by a tailored screening questionnaire for all groups, used to ascertain eligibility for the research.

All of those interviewed were based in Great Britain. A summary of the businesses and external representatives that took part in the qualitative research by their characteristics is outlined in the Appendix. We sampled participants purposively to highlight a diverse range of business circumstances and experiences of goods’ detentions. The sub-groups varied in size according to the sampling strategy outlined in the appendix.

3.6 Interpretation of qualitative data

When considering these findings, it is important to keep in mind that qualitative research is descriptive, illustrative, and exploratory. It explores the range of experiences and opinions of participants in detail, providing insight into the key reasons underlying participants’ views.

This research is based on the findings of interviews with 30 participants, which is a small proportion of the number of businesses that hold intellectual property. Please treat the findings in this report as indicative and related to those interviewed. This research is not representative of the broader population of IP rights holders.

Throughout the report, we have included verbatim quotes to illustrate findings. To protect participant anonymity, quotations have been attributed to key business characteristics.

4. Business relationships with registered IP rights

This section explores how businesses register and manage their intellectual property rights. It covers the types of intellectual property rights that businesses register and how this differs by business size. It also looks at the reasons for registration of different types of intellectual property, and the experiences of businesses in managing the protection of their intellectual property.

4.1 Typical business IP portfolios

Across all business sizes, trademarks were the most frequently registered form of intellectual property. This was consistent for both small and large businesses in the research sample.

The intellectual property portfolios of small and large businesses differed significantly in scale and complexity. Small businesses typically held a single trademark which was usually registered to protect their main business name or company logo. In contrast, larger businesses approached IP registration quite differently. This is because large businesses tend to hold much more extensive portfolios, sometimes with tens or hundreds of trademark registrations. These were used to protect core brand assets and sub-brands, including supplementary logos and product names for specific product lines. Large businesses also registered trademarks for specific design features.

Larger businesses were also more likely to register other types of intellectual property rights beyond trademarks. Around half of the large businesses in the sample held between 2 and 5 design rights. Design rights were used to protect the appearance of products which could legally be considered new or novel. As a result, businesses made greater use of design rights in industries where a product’s visual appearance was a core part of its value. Examples of this include the use of design rights by fashion, clothing and apparel businesses.

Patents were the least commonly held intellectual property right. Businesses that held patents typically held only one or two and used these to protect specific technical inventions. For example, one fast moving consumer goods business held one patent covering the specific ingredient formulation of one of their cosmetic products. One pharmaceutical manufacturer held several patents against product formulations where technical complexity of products were of greater value against the cost of clinical trials and market competition.

4.2 Drivers behind registration of IP rights

All businesses viewed their intellectual property as an important asset, regardless of business size.

For smaller businesses, intellectual property registrations were viewed as valuable long term assets. For example, some small business owners believed that holding a registered IP right could increase the value of their business if it were ever to be sold.

In addition to being seen as a financial asset, registered IP rights were also seen by some smaller businesses as a form of future protection against potential competitors. In this context, registered IP rights were viewed as a tool to help business to guard against the possibility of others copying their products. However, several small businesses stated that while market competition was a long-term consideration for them, it did not warrant any immediate action.

Overall, small businesses tended to be in the early stages of managing their intellectual property and were often unaware of whether they faced any risk of infringement. Most assumed that they were not a target for counterfeiters. Smaller businesses were unsure what actions they could be taking to protect their rights, such as monitoring for infringement or using online brand protection tools.

Businesses gave examples that help to illustrate these experiences in practice. For example, one small manufacturing business registered their trademark after observing long-term infringement issues within its sector. However, after registering their trademark, they had not taken further steps to look for information on how they could protect their trademark from possible future infringement. This was because despite having gone through the registration process, they did not know what further steps they needed to put in place to safeguard their trademark.

Another small manufacturer registered their trademark after consulting a business advisor. They stated that they would have been unlikely to register their trademark if they had not received this guidance. Beyond this, the business had limited links to advisors and peer networks which they said made them feel disconnected from others in their industry. Consequently, the business said that if they needed further information on IP rights in the future, they would most likely rely on their own desk research.

“The only thing I’m thinking, is that I don’t know which of our products its [counterfeiting risk] most likely to apply to and how likely they are to be counterfeited. And, if they are counterfeited whether they’d come into the UK. If they were, we’d expect low volume, high value.” Small unregistered business, advanced manufacturing

“For me, the only thing in my head is, like, ‘Okay, I’ll trademark it and that’s enough.’ But obviously, protecting it as well, you know, means to have some form of monitoring which I just don’t know anything about.” Small unregistered business, manufacturing

For larger businesses, intellectual property rights were viewed as essential commercial tools. As product ranges and brand awareness grew, businesses felt more at risk of potential infringement, making IP registrations increasingly vital for safeguarding their future.

IP registrations were seen by larger businesses as a means to protect revenue and brand reputation. Those with experience of dealing with counterfeiting described losing income and sales to counterfeiters, with some suffering significant financial losses due to availability of counterfeit goods in the market. When prompted, large businesses said that lost sales were just as important as impacts to brand reputation. For example, many businesses explained that customers lost to counterfeiters often did not return, which made customer retention particularly difficult.

For large businesses in sectors such as consumer electronics and pharmaceuticals, IP registrations were also used to protect consumer health and safety. Trademarks were seen as a guarantee of product safety, in contrast to counterfeit products which often posed serious risk to consumers.

Compared with smaller businesses, large businesses tended to have a clearer understanding of how to protect their intellectual property. These participants were broadly aware of the main routes for protection and how to monitor for infringement, such as by using online brand protection services and investigators.

Many larger businesses also noted that IP protection had become a higher priority for their business over the past 3 to 10 years. They linked this shift to the growth of online shopping, which has created a wider variety of sales channels for counterfeiters to use and moved counterfeiting beyond physical stores.

“We invest massively in consumer experience… we consider a first moment of truth, a customer goes online or goes in store and buys the product, they go home and use it, and then we want the repeat business, whereas counterfeiters just care about that first sale.”

Large registered business, fast moving consumer goods

“If you want to grow your brand, you have to protect it, you can’t ignore counterfeiting… if you don’t protect your brand, it can slip away, and it’s slipped away from many companies. People don’t trust that if you lose consumer trust in your products… it’s very, very hard to regain.”

Large registered business, food and beverage

4.3 Perceived enforceability was another key driver behind IP registration choices

The interviews did not explicitly explore drivers behind registration of different IP types. However, some large businesses and external representatives spontaneously mentioned enforceability of different IP rights as an important factor when considering what type of IP to register.

Trademarks were the clearest example of this and were well recognised within both criminal and civil enforcement routes. This gave businesses greater confidence that infringements could be dealt with effectively, should legal action ever be required.

In contrast, several participants in larger businesses said they had limited knowledge of how registered design rights are enforced against or how they operate in litigation. Some noted that awareness in this area was slowly increasing. Nevertheless, design rights and their application were seen as less well understood than trademark registrations.

Perceptions were mixed regarding the effectiveness of Border Force agents in intercepting counterfeit goods at UK borders. For example, one apparel and clothing business reported positive experiences with Border Force agents recognising and accurately intercepting counterfeit goods based on a registered design right infringement. Whereas several other businesses described low trust that Border Force agents would effectively intercept based on design rights infringement.

Some participants also felt that regulatory and law enforcement bodies such as Trading Standards and the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) had lower awareness and understanding of design rights. They explained this view was based on a lack of experience within these bodies in enforcing design rights infringements.

This lack of confidence in design rights’ monitoring and enforcement made some businesses cautious. Some described lower willingness to register design rights as they doubted whether infringements would be handled effectively within criminal enforcement routes involving Trading Standards and PIPCU. Civil action for design right infringement was also not seen as a practical option, due to the high associated costs. Businesses felt legal action was justified where the volume and value of seized counterfeit goods was adequately substantial.

“On our AFA, we register trademarks and design rights… the outsole that is a registered design, so people could import the classic (Shoe brand) style with a plain outsole, but if they try and import our outsole, they would have to detain it, and they do detain it… So, customs over the years have detained more infringements of registered design than trademark for our brands.”

Large registered business, apparel and clothing

4.4 Business experiences managing IP protection

Overall, businesses described protecting their intellectual property as challenging.

Smaller businesses were broadly unaware of how to protect their intellectual property or how to find relevant information on the steps they should take to do so. This lack of awareness meant that many did not have established monitoring and enforcement processes in place. In addition, many small businesses believed they were not at imminent risk of IP infringement, which meant that IP protection was not felt to be a priority.

Large businesses described the monitoring and enforcement processes that they typically used as relatively easy to administer and follow. However, the complexity of counterfeiter activities meant businesses were mostly reactive to incidents. Participants found it difficult to prevent infringement in the first place since online and offline behaviour from counterfeiters was consistently evolving.

Businesses also faced the challenge of prioritising their resources around IP protection and monitoring. While larger businesses were more likely to engage in IP protection, participants explained their organisations typically had small in-house brand protection teams of around 3 to 5 staff. Against this context, participants described having to prioritise IP enforcement actions that delivered clear and measurable outcomes, such as meeting monthly takedown targets. This was often the case, even when building a case against a more significant counterfeiter might have delivered greater commercial impact in the long term. This reflected a trade off: the need to demonstrate short term business value in order to justify current spend and secure future funding. This was the case even when the chosen actions were not the most effective in addressing IP infringement.

Large businesses with more experience of dealing with counterfeiting also explained that counterfeiters typically target products with either high price points or high margins. For example, businesses described particular caution of counterfeiting impact around the launch of new products. These brand protection teams who had regular new product launches often focussed on immediate threats where the potential risks of counterfeiting were perceived to be highest. For example, one large apparel manufacturer explained they aim to capture around 80% of the expected revenue from a new product before counterfeiters begin to affect sales.

From the research interviews, the day-to-day work of a brand-protection team can be broken down into four main areas, with qualitative data showing how priorities were set:

• managing the intellectual property portfolio, including new registrations and renewals (estimated 25% of the time)
• protecting against infringement of products already available in the market (estimated 20% of the time)
• protecting against infringement of imminent new product launches (estimated 30% of the time)
• helping with future brand and product development, including liaising with product, research and development (R&D), brand and marketing teams to ensure IP registrations are planned, registered and embedded into development as early as possible (estimated 25% of the time).

The way activities were prioritised varied between businesses, however all faced the challenge of making decisions with limited resources. This meant teams had to constantly choose where to focus their time and money. As a result, many businesses spontaneously described their protection efforts in the same way as a game of ‘whack-a-mole’, reflecting the reactive nature of their approach to infringements.

“The day to day enforcement is quite whack-a-mole. It’s picking your fights with a finite resource from a legal perspective. We have big infringement issues in some of our products, and it’s the business driving the need to crack down.”

Large registered business, entertainment

“I think it’s getting harder, there’s more challenges… you keep flagging an infringer, but they know the platform doesn’t really take you down, or some platforms are like three strikes and you’re down, but they all talk online, e.g. you can get away with this by doing this.”

Large registered business, entertainment

4.5 Summary

In summary, interviews revealed clear differences in how businesses of varying sizes manage their intellectual property portfolios. Small businesses tended to hold simple or minimal IP portfolios, often comprising only one registered trademark. In contrast, larger businesses within the sample typically managed far more extensive portfolios, typically including between 10 and 100 trademarks, three to five design rights, and one or two patents. These larger portfolios were often complex, spanning multiple product categories and markets, and requiring structured internal management processes.

A consistent theme across interviews was that a business’s decision to register an IP right, especially design rights, was influenced by their perception of enforceability. Many businesses indicated that their willingness to invest in registration depended on their level of trust in law enforcement agencies and confidence that their rights would be upheld in practice. This perceived link between enforcement strength and registration behaviour underscored the importance of visible and effective IP protection systems.

For smaller businesses, intellectual property management remained at an early formative stage. Many small businesses reported limited awareness of their exposure to infringement, often assuming they were too small or niche to be targeted. This lack of perceived risk contributed to uncertainty about what concrete steps to take to protect their rights, building a reactive rather than proactive approach.

Even among larger, more experienced firms, resource constraints shaped IP management behaviour. Participants described the need to constantly prioritise which infringements to act upon. This led to what several referred to as a ‘whack-a-mole’ approach where businesses responded to infringements as they arise, rather than implementing a more proactive protection strategy. This reactive pattern reflected the broader tension between limited resources and growing complexity of managing IP in global markets.

5. Businesses’ experiences of counterfeiting

This section explores businesses’ experiences with counterfeiting. It covers how they monitor for and find out about counterfeit activity. The section details who counterfeiters are and how their methods have changed in recent years. It also outlines the impacts of counterfeiting on businesses and the routes they use for enforcement. Finally, it explains the criteria that guide enforcement decisions.

5.1 How businesses monitor for counterfeiting

Most businesses that were actively monitoring for counterfeiting were larger in size and sat in the AFA registered part of the sample. These businesses reported a limited selection of tools available for monitoring for counterfeit goods and IP infringement.

The most common monitoring approach involved engaging an external online brand protection service, sometimes referred to by businesses as an ‘OBP’. These organisations use advanced technologies, including AI-powered web scraping, to constantly scan the internet for infringements. These service providers also handle online takedown notices across global markets and provide businesses with regular reports to analyse trends. For example, one large manufacturing business explained that their online brand protection service provider scrapes key websites twice a week, providing them with a list of new vendors selling their products.

Several businesses also described paying for in-person support from investigation agencies or independent investigators. This was particularly common for complex cases where physical evidence was needed. Businesses outsourced test purchases to investigators or investigation agencies, freeing up business time and resource, and avoiding detection from counterfeiters.

As well as using an OBP or external investigator, businesses also registered for a UK AFA, which some businesses refer to as a ‘customs recordal’. This was the only monitoring method that could prevent counterfeit goods from entering the UK market. The UK AFA was seen as a proactive approach compared to others which dealt with counterfeit goods once they were already available in the market.

Due to the importance of preventing goods entering the market in the first place, many AFA registered businesses allocated resource and time to working with Border Force agents. This time was used to provide training to Border Force agents to help them distinguish genuine products from counterfeits. The Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) often coordinated these training sessions, delivered both online and in-person at different border facilities. Some businesses with a long history of dealing with counterfeiting had direct relationships with customs teams. One participant noted that their company dedicates a lot of time to training events. However, they saw mixed results whether training sessions resulted in an increased number of detentions. Another participant explained that even after spending 3 days training Border Force agents on-site at one facility, they had seen no detentions since. Despite this, businesses felt it was still valuable to build these relationships with the Border Force agents. This was primarily important so that their brands were top-of-mind and so that agents had a clear sense of who to contact if they came across any suspicious goods. Even where results from training were unclear in terms of impact on interception rates, businesses stated they planned to continue doing this.

The final monitoring method observed was the use of trademark watching services. These services were used by a small number of large businesses who sought an external system for monitoring new trademark applications globally. The main purpose of this scanning activity was to identify registration of infringing trademarks in other markets or trademark classes as early as possible. Identifying an infringing trademark early was useful because it allowed businesses to engage with the registering party ahead of registration confirmation. Where an infringement was identified, businesses typically aimed to prevent the registration altogether or if not, discuss alternative solutions to avoid infringement.

5.2 How businesses found out about counterfeiting

Businesses described building up their monitoring approaches over time to include services such as those mentioned in the section above. However, beyond this, businesses discovered counterfeit goods through a range of routes, with each source of information treated as highly valuable. Counterfeit identification was particularly valuable when products or packaging included details about the identity of the exporter or importer, including addresses. These details were consistently used in case building and further enforcement action.

The main ways that businesses found out about counterfeiting were:

• staff members spotting suspicious goods, either for sale online or in physical stores
• reports from their online monitoring service providers
• notifications of customs detentions for businesses that held an Application for Action
• information from Trading Standards following local inspections
• complaints directly from customers who had bought a suspicious product
• alerts from partners in their supply chain, such as distributors or licensees

For example, one participant from a large entertainment business noted they sometimes receive alerts about counterfeit goods from fans of their products. Additionally, a participant from a large consumer electronics business explained that customer service hotlines are an important source of intelligence.

5.3 Who counterfeiters are

During interviews, businesses with experience of counterfeiting were asked about their understanding of who was behind counterfeiting activity. A key goal of this research question was to draw on businesses’ understanding regarding the prevalence of repeat vs. individual offending.

Large businesses in particular who had more experience dealing with counterfeiting described their perception that repeat offending was most common among those exporting goods from other markets. For example, businesses most commonly cited China and Turkey as key counterfeit markets where exporters acted repeatedly to move counterfeit goods into the UK market at the largest volumes.

Participants described how prolific commercial counterfeiters operate at a much larger scale. They list hundreds or thousands of items for sale across many different online accounts and platforms. They also are known to use false identities and PO boxes to hide their constantly changing locations and activities.

Participants found it very difficult to get clear data on the identities of the most impactful counterfeiters. This was because offenders continually changed their tactics to hide their identities by using fake identification and addresses. In contrast, businesses also described smaller scale counterfeiters. These were sometimes described as ‘mum and dad’ operations who act outside of sole commercial intent. These counterfeiters are often seen as fans of a particular brand, often selling branded paraphernalia that the business does not sell themselves. They operate at much lower volumes, which resulted in businesses taking varied approaches towards their activities. Some did not enforce at all against these counterfeiters. However, in order to keep branding clear and consistent for consumers, most described sending a friendlier warning letter compared those sent to larger scale counterfeiters. Participants explained these counterfeiters typically ceased their activity immediately.

Regarding importing of counterfeit goods into the UK market, most importers were reported to be individual consumers buying for personal use, typically through both traditional and newer online marketplaces.

A minority of large businesses described occasionally spotting patterns in importer data that suggested links to wider organised crime groups on the importer side. However, these businesses described the same patterns of consistently changing identities and goods’ destinations on shipping labels to avoid detection. For example, one participant from the entertainment industry had experienced dealing with organised criminal gangs who were making large amounts of money importing counterfeit goods into the UK. They stated that the importing groups did not stop their activities, even after being prosecuted.

5.4 How counterfeiting had shifted in recent years

This section outlines in detail the observations of businesses who had relevant counterfeiting experience regarding how counterfeiting had changed.

Businesses reported that counterfeiting methods have shifted significantly in the last 5 years. These changes in counterfeiting were mainly driven by the increased use of online marketplaces and the availability of new technologies.

The key shifts in counterfeiting included:

• a major growth in the use of online shopping platforms
• counterfeiters quickly targeting new online trends, such as a popular style of shoe or a new electronic item
• new technologies enabling counterfeiters to improve the quality of their products and hide their activities more effectively

Shifts in sales tactics

Counterfeiters were observed to have expanded their sales strategies significantly, targeting a wider range of online sales platforms to reach potential consumers.

Online brand protection (OBP) services targeted traditional online marketplaces consistently to detect new cases of infringement, with businesses describing them as hotspots for counterfeiting activity. These more traditional sales platforms typically had more established infringement policies and processes. Businesses described it as a relatively quick and simple process to report seller accounts and product listings for removal. Some participants who sat in-house within brands sometimes conducted these activities themselves due to how quickly processes could be completed, for example if alerted to a new case of infringement by a colleague.

Businesses additionally described emergence of newer online sales platforms where the selling of counterfeit goods was seen as a growing problem and where it was more difficult for businesses to effectively enforce against infringement. Infringement policies and processes on these newer online marketplaces were seen as less established. Some businesses also commented that the problem of counterfeit goods being sold on these platforms did not appear to be treated as seriously as on more traditional marketplaces. The lack of an effective reporting process and perceived dedication to tackling counterfeiting made the enforcement route of online takedown notices more difficult to implement. Businesses described a range of experiences from not being able to report infringing product listings or seller accounts at all, to reporting processes having no follow-up actions or perceived effect on counterfeiter accounts. A minority of these newer platforms were seen to be actively working towards improvement. For example, one participant reported awareness that a newer platform was currently establishing their own brand protection team which would assist brands experiencing counterfeiting on their platform.

A participant from a large business in the entertainment sector also highlighted the use of encrypted social platforms as the newest hotspots for selling of counterfeit goods. This participant described one encrypted social platform as “problematic for basically everyone”, as well as particularly difficult to infiltrate as a brand without any specialist help. This participant also described their own sense that many brands are still unaware of counterfeiting activity on these encrypted platforms based on their discussions with others in the brand protection industry. They perceived this lack of awareness to be tied to the difficulty of accessing the necessary channels and groups within these platforms to identify infringement.

“Back in the day you’d go and raid Camden market. But now online, they have so many accounts. The platforms do a certain amount, but only up to a certain level”.

Large registered business, entertainment

Another important shift in sales tactics was the use of drop-shipping as means of delivering counterfeit goods to individual buyers. Drop-shipping allows a seller to ship individual counterfeit goods directly to the consumer from a factory, without the requirement of importing larger quantities of stock. Several participants speculated that drop-shipping had provided counterfeiters with a new way of delivering goods to consumers, while gaining added protection from detection at borders due to the individual nature of parcels being shipped. These participants were generally sympathetic to the challenge this posed to enforcement bodies such as Border Force. Some commented that greater collaboration between enforcement bodies and intermediaries using new technologies such as AI and machine learning to detect patterns in shipment details could be a route forward to tackling this specific issue.

Shifts in evasion tactics

Businesses with experience of counterfeiting also described evolution in strategies used to avoid detection at the border. For example, one common tactic described was importing products in separate parts for assembly in the UK. A food and beverage business explained this process was used particularly effectively for movement of counterfeit alcohol. They described how empty glass bottles, separate labels, and separate capsules are all shipped individually, sometimes even hidden among other unrelated product shipments. Bottles are then filled and assembled by counterfeiters after entering the UK market.

Another example includes instances of counterfeiters mislabelling the contents of shipments to mislead border officials. This was perceived to be a very common way that counterfeiters would seek to avoid detection by classifying the goods contained in the package incorrectly with a product category that was less ‘at-risk’ of counterfeiting. One participant mentioned awareness of intermediaries such as freight forwarders building their own in-house scanning and detection software to try and tackle this problem. They explained how this software uses algorithms and new technology such as machine learning to build understanding of shipping routes and profiles associated with similar shipment origin addresses or destinations. The mislabelling of products was a key focus within this analysis, and there was one example of this software successfully identifying a counterfeit good. This information had been shared by the freight forwarder with Border Force, who had consequently stopped the good at the border as part of the shipping process.

Other evasion strategies included use of product disguises on counterfeit goods that were later removed after goods had successfully passed through customs. For example, one apparel retailer described counterfeiters adding an additional sole onto the bottom of a pair of shoes. This additional sole was then removed after goods had passed the border, revealing the original sole that had a registered design right attached to it. This brand relied on customs agents’ ability to recognise the disguised sole, in order to intercept the counterfeit goods. The brand reported that customs agents over time had become very effective at this. Another business reported another form of disguise. This business’s key brand mark included a repeated pattern. The business had noticed counterfeiters were shipping counterfeit goods which included only part of this repeated pattern, with the remaining part of the pattern due to be added after goods had passed the border. This business also relied on customs agents being able to recognise that counterfeiters intended to add further branding to the counterfeit goods after entering the market, in order to effectively intercept the infringing items. Counterfeiters’ use of disguises was a key strategy that justified businesses’ time investments into training of customs agents. Businesses saw it as an important exercise to regularly train customs agents on the differentiating markers and latest tactics being used to counterfeit their own products.

Improved counterfeit quality

The improvement in the quality of counterfeit goods was also a major concern for businesses across the sample. Counterfeiters were believed to have improved access to modern production and manufacturing equipment, particularly in key counterfeiting markets such as China. Newer machinery enabled counterfeiters to manufacture counterfeit goods which were much closer in look and feel to the legitimate item, adding further challenge for customs agents to identify counterfeits. This was an observation across sectors, most concerning within production of counterfeit electronics and car components where consequent safety risk posed to consumers was high.

Additionally, use of AI for infringement of digital media assets was cited by several businesses within the entertainment industry as presenting new challenges. Use of AI was viewed as a new form of digital infringement where viable enforcement routes did not yet exist, meaning businesses felt relatively unable to take meaningful action to prevent brand dilution. Additionally, the advent of 3D printing posed a new challenge for several manufacturers, including businesses within the entertainment and automotive industries. These businesses reported that 3D printing machines allowed counterfeiters to produce counterfeit goods at a very high standard, creating goods which appear to be of high-quality but which continue to present safety risk to consumers.

One participant noted that counterfeit quality is improved to the point it is sometimes difficult to distinguish if a product is counterfeit from photographs alone.

“It used to be Turkey tat where they didn’t even try and copy the security label. Whereas now the product itself is very good and they copy the security label”.

Large registered business, apparel and clothing

5.5 Business impacts of counterfeiting

Businesses described a range of negative business impacts arising from counterfeiting, which were mostly felt across the sales, brand, and safety areas of business operations.

The most direct commercial impact was the loss of revenue. Counterfeit products diverted sales away from legitimate businesses and their authorised retailers. Losses in revenue also affected the wider supply chain. For example, an automotive manufacturer explained how a counterfeit part could significantly harm business performance of the UK supplier that produces the genuine component for them.

Damage to the brand and its reputation was also a key concern for all businesses that faced counterfeiting. The availability of poor quality counterfeit products was seen to dilute the value of the brand. Businesses reported that consumer loyalty is difficult to build and very hard to win back once it is lost. Additionally, impact to brand and reputation was very difficult to measure in financial terms, making it difficult to quantify or track.

“We invest massively in the product experience. Counterfeiters just care about that first sale. If a consumer has a bad experience with a fake, they think we’re liable, and we lose their trust”.

Large registered business, fast moving consumer goods

In some product categories, counterfeiting presented a serious risk of consumer harm. Counterfeit goods in sectors like consumer electronics, car parts, beauty, and pharmaceuticals often posed a safety risk. One business described how they had recently tested a counterfeit version of a newly launched fragrance and found it contained toxic ingredients that are harmful to consumers.

Counterfeiting also impacted businesses by distorting legitimate sales channels and disrupting official distribution networks and licensees across global markets. For the businesses being targeted, this often led to an increased administrative burden whereby time was spent looking for areas of weakness within supply chains.

5.6 Enforcement routes

Once participants explained how they approached monitoring for counterfeit goods, interviews continued to explore how businesses enforce against incidences of infringement and counterfeiting once identified.

Businesses described their perception of having only a limited number of enforcement routes available to choose from. This meant the route businesses took typically depended on the type of infringement they were facing, and the quantity and quality of evidence they had available.

Online takedown notices were the most common, low cost enforcement route. This involved requesting an online marketplace to remove a listing for a counterfeit product. Most large businesses used their online brand protection providers to manage this process and the effectiveness of takedowns varied by platform. Established platforms had clear processes for reporting infringements, whereas newer platforms were described as harder to work with. Participants consistently reported that having a personal contact at a marketplace significantly improved their enforcement success.

Sending cease-and-desist letters was often the second step that businesses took once infringement or counterfeiting was identified. These letters request that the counterfeiter stops their activity. However, this was only possible if the business had contact information for the seller. For the large-scale and most impactful counterfeiters, this information was often very difficult to find. However outside of the large-scale counterfeiters, businesses described sending cease-and-desist letters fairly regularly.

Test purchases were used as a means of gathering further evidence. Once a suspected counterfeit item was identified, a business would arrange to buy it. This was usually done by an external investigator to avoid alerting the counterfeiter. The physical product could then be analysed to confirm it was fake and to find clues about its origin.

“These aren’t nice people that we’re dealing with. The last thing we want to do is give them our address by doing a test purchase. So, we use an external team that has safety protocols set up.”

Large registered business, consumer electronics

Compared to the prevalence of conducting online takedown notices and sending cease-and-desist letters, it was relatively uncommon for businesses to pass cases on to the police or Trading Standards for criminal enforcement action. This happened where a business had secured significant evidence about a counterfeiter through their own investigations, often supported by additional intel sourced from AFA goods’ detentions and test purchases. Businesses often felt that they did not have a strong enough case to guarantee a successful outcome and chose to save internal resource and time by not taking action via criminal litigation routes.

The time required for criminal and civil legal action was also a major barrier, with decisions about this enforcement route considered in-depth internally and usually with external representatives such as IP or trademark attorneys before committing.

For civil enforcement routes, costs were off-putting even for the largest businesses. A small number of businesses in the apparel and clothing industry described occasionally collaborating with other brands to strengthen their cases and share the burden of litigation costs. This was more common when a single counterfeiter was evidenced via AFA detention information to be targeting multiple brands and shipping multiple brands’ counterfeit goods in the same container.

Businesses sometimes conducted raids of premises by joining up with police or Trading Standards officers. This was another enforcement route that occurred only rarely due to the risk involved, the need to secure capacity and buy-in from law enforcement agencies, and likelihood that counterfeiting groups will have already moved on.

5.7 Enforcement decision-making criteria

Decisions about enforcement were complex. Businesses considered several factors at the same time in order to decide which actions to take.

The first factor businesses considered when faced with a new infringement or counterfeit incident was commercial harm. They assessed how much the counterfeit activity was hurting their revenue both currently and in future if the counterfeiter were to persist. Prolific counterfeiters would almost always trigger action which usually involved large scale takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters. This was due to the current impact on customer sales and brand reputation, and potential future damage should their current activities not be curtailed.

The second factor businesses considered was about safety and liability. Businesses typically took a zero tolerance approach to any counterfeit that could physically harm a customer. The presence of a safety risk was the most common reason for escalating a case towards civil or criminal enforcement.

The third factor businesses considered related to the scale of the counterfeiting operation. Businesses considered intelligence available to them on the volume of counterfeit goods and the perceived sophistication of the counterfeiter. A non-professional, small scale infringer might receive a letter asking them to stop, whereas a large, organised operation would trigger a much stronger response, including further investigation.

The fourth factor considered was the strength of the evidence. A business’s ability to take action beyond online takedowns depended on having good evidence. This could include sender data from a customs detention, photographs, or a technical assessment of a counterfeit product.

The final consideration was cost and capacity. Businesses facing high levels of counterfeiting had to be pragmatic about the return on the time and money invested in enforcement. For this reason, legal spending was usually reserved for the highest priority targets. These were cases that involved a safety risk or considerable commercial harm, and where very strong evidence was available.

“Safety critical components are zero tolerance, we go after everyone where we can. Otherwise, it comes down to volume and whether its diverting sales from our business. The wider supply chain is also very reliant on our sales, for example it [counterfeiting] could end local businesses that produce for us.”

Large registered business, manufacturing

“We’re having a lot of issues in South America at the minute, particularly Colombia… although we would focus our efforts in that region because we know we’ve got issues, we also have to weigh up the value of what we’re getting for our money as well, because in places like Colombia, law enforcement isn’t that helpful so we need to think carefully about how much time we dedicate to trying to enforce… versus other markets where we might have more presence and market share, and where it’s therefore a higher priority.”.

Large registered business, consumer electronics

5.8 Summary

Overall, businesses consistently reported that counterfeiting methods have changed markedly over the past five to ten years, shifting away from physical market stalls toward a wide range of online platforms. This transition has introduced new challenges for monitoring and enforcement, as counterfeiters now operate across more diverse online platforms with increased agility. Participants also highlighted that counterfeiters are employing more sophisticated tactics to avoid detection, such as importing product components separately and reassembling them after they have cleared the UK border.

The business impacts of counterfeiting were found to extend far beyond direct financial losses. While reduced sales remain a key consequence, respondents emphasised that reputational damage can be equally, if not more, detrimental. This affects not only the targeted brand, but also other businesses within its supply chain. For firms producing goods with potential safety implications, the risks were particularly acute. Several participants cited examples of counterfeit products containing toxic ingredients, unsafe electrical components, or defective automotive parts that posed direct risks to consumer health and safety.

Finally, interviews demonstrated that businesses often face complex decisions about which infringements to pursue, particularly given finite enforcement budgets. Most firms described taking a prioritised approach, escalating cases only when the potential consumer risk was deemed significant. The most consistent trigger for enforcement beyond online takedowns was a perceived threat to consumer safety, an issue on which most businesses reported maintaining a strict zero-tolerance stance.

6. Perceptions and experiences of the UK AFA

This section is divided into three sub-sections to separately provide feedback on the UK AFA service from the perspectives of the different audiences included in the research. The three sub-sections and audiences are:

• businesses that were already registered with the UK AFA service at the time of the research, most of which were large businesses with over 250 staff
• businesses which were not registered with the UK AFA service at the time of the research, including two that previously held a UK AFA which had consequently expired
• a dedicated section on lapsed service users, including why some businesses had lapsed in their UK AFA registration and their future intentions to re-register

6.1 Experiences of the UK AFA among registered businesses

This section details the perceptions and experiences of businesses that use the UK AFA service. The findings are based on in-depth interviews with 17 businesses that currently hold a UK AFA.

The research explored the entire user journey. This included why businesses register for the service and how they find out about it. It also covered their experiences of the registration process, their management of counterfeit detentions, and their overall views on the service’s performance.

Drivers for registering for a UK AFA

For registered businesses, the primary driver for using the AFA service was to establish a first line of defence against physical counterfeit goods.

The UK AFA service was seen as a unique and essential monitoring tool and the only mechanism that stops counterfeit items at the border, before they enter the UK market. Participants used terms like a ‘tool in the IP toolkit’ and ‘another weapon in our arsenal’ when asked why they registered for the service.

“It’s much easier to seize products on the border coming into the country than it is for us to start doing the criminal raids once the product is already in”.

Large registered business, manufacturing

Beyond acting as a preventative measure, the service was also valued as a critical source of intelligence. The details of the importer and exporter provided in detention notifications were seen as incredibly valuable. This information often allowed businesses to identify repeat offenders and build stronger cases against prolific counterfeiters. Intelligence obtained via notifications from UK AFA goods’ detentions was seen as higher quality and more reliable than information gathered from other monitoring mechanisms.

“If we didn’t get the details from customs about consignee details, it would be pointless. It’s data we need to progress investigations, and brands have to enforce ourselves through civil enforcement programmes.”

Large registered business, manufacturing

For a minority of businesses, registering for the AFA service was described as part of company policy. However, this was not a typical approach, and it was more common for a member of staff within brand protection with prior experience of the service from a previous role to introduce it to the business and educate others on its benefits.

Routes to awareness of the service

Most businesses learned about the AFA service through professional networks and industry bodies. For example, the Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) and REACT were both frequently mentioned as sources of information and training. Several businesses also became aware of the service through communications from the Intellectual Property Office, particularly after the UK left the EU at which point communications were shared with UK IP rights holders about the UK AFA service.

Other sources of awareness included:

• formal intellectual property training courses
• recommendations from professional bodies like the Chartered Society of Designers
• in-house legal counsel or brand protection leads who had used the service in previous roles
• direct contact from border officials, for example from the seizure team at Heathrow Airport

For businesses operating globally, experience with customs recordals in other markets such as the US, China or Australia was also a factor. This experience normalised the practice of border registration. The UK AFA was therefore seen as the UK part of a wider global brand protection strategy.

Understanding of the service

All registered businesses had a good understanding of the core purpose of the AFA service. They knew it was a mechanism to help Border Force identify and detain counterfeit goods at the UK border.

Even businesses that had never experienced a detention understood the concept of the service as a border monitoring facility. Those with direct experience of detentions were comfortable with the process. They understood the notification forms and the evidence they needed to provide.

Amongst some businesses there was a lack of clarity about the duration of the UK AFA. Registrations in other countries and for intellectual property rights often last for 5 or 10 years. This led to some confusion over the UK’s shorter one-year registration period.

“For the UK AFA, you renew yearly, whereas in the other territories, you renew after 5 or 10 years. It lessens the burden on brand owners to have to remember to renew yearly.”

Large registered business, entertainment

Barriers to UK AFA registration among registered businesses

Businesses who were already registered with the UK AFA service were asked to reflect on any barriers or hesitations they could remember prior to filing their AFA registration.

For the few businesses that cited any barriers prior to registration, the main issue they described was the perceived administrative burden of the process. This was particularly true for large businesses who had accumulated larger intellectual property portfolios meaning the process of collecting relevant AFA data was a significant undertaking. These businesses had felt concern about the time required to gather and co-ordinate all the necessary information from different parts of the business ahead of registration.

For example, one large manufacturing business described reviewing and filtering a list of 800 trademarks to create a manageable AFA submission. They explained that preparation for the AFA registration process was sufficiently time consuming that they were not able to include all the products they wanted to protect.

“We only filter down the number of products we upload in our AFA registration because of how time consuming the registration process is. If I could upload more, I would.”

Large registered business, manufacturing

Another large consumer electronics business described their 6-month data collection process each year to prepare for the 30-day AFA renewal window.

The administrative burden was less of a concern for smaller businesses with smaller intellectual property portfolios.

Outside of concerns about the administrative burden of registration, one large media business explained that before they first registered, they had been concerned about potential costs of using the AFA service.

UK AFA registration experiences

The experience of registering for the UK AFA service was described as consistently positive. Businesses used terms like ‘straightforward’ and ‘better than expected’. They reported that the AFA team at HMRC were prompt, helpful, and confirmed successful registrations quickly.

“The ease of applying and efficiency of staff and approvals are all good. 10 out of 10.”

Large registered business, apparel and clothing

However, some businesses found the process of inputting data within the AFA registration portal to be very manual and repetitive. Several businesses noted the lack of a template for a bulk upload of trademarks. A participant from a consumer electronics business also expressed frustration at having to submit separate AFA applications for different intellectual property owners within the same parent company.

Many businesses with large global operations passed the responsibility for registration to an external representative. This was due to the complexity of managing multiple applications across different markets, a lack of internal capacity and a desire for an external dedicated individual to be the first point of contact for Border Force goods detention notifications.

Post-AFA registration experiences

After registration, two common frustrations emerged. The first of these was voiced by many across the registered business sample. This related to the inability to view or edit their application after registration. Businesses felt that an online portal would improve clarity of what was currently registered under their AFA, and efficiency when actioning updates such as adding or removing trademarks.

The lack of a portal and the time-consuming nature of the initial registration meant that some businesses did not list their full intellectual property portfolio on their application. Instead, several participants described ‘cherry-picking’ the most important assets to include. These businesses stated that a portal would allow them to build up their application more gradually over time, ultimately providing better coverage.

“Most of the AFA stuff in other markets is done online, you just go online and log all your trademarks. You can renew your AFA through this portal as well.”

Large registered business, apparel and clothing

The second post-registration issue was the lack of automated renewal reminders. Most registered businesses spontaneously reported that they received no notification from HMRC when their application was due to expire. They had to rely entirely on their own internal diary systems. Several participants had missed the renewal deadline in the past and had to start the entire application process again.

Experiences of AFA counterfeit goods’ detentions

This sub-section details the process businesses follow when notified of a detention. It also explores businesses’ experiences with the process and the actions they take as a result of goods detentions.

The counterfeit detention process

The business process after a goods detention was clear and consistent. Businesses and external representatives confirmed the process involved the following steps:

1. notification: The named representative on the AFA application receives an email from a customs agent notifying them of a detention. The named individual could be someone internal within the business itself, or an external representative if the business outsourced this responsibility. Businesses were very happy with email notifications as they allowed for a quick response
2. notification assessment: The representative assessed the information and images in the email to determine if the goods are counterfeit.
3. IP Rights’ holder response: The business completes a PDF form, usually confirming the goods are counterfeit and confirming their request for destruction of the seized goods. This is returned to the agent by email
4. no acknowledgement: Businesses did not receive a formal confirmation that their response had been received. Most did not see this as a problem, but some stated they would prefer an acknowledgement

Three further steps were taken by some businesses, dependent on the nature of the seizure:

Notification referrals

The email notification was often passed onto another individual for the purposes of making assessments of the photos provided by the customs agent, prior to returning the notification form to the customs agent.

If the notification initially arrived to an external representative, the notification was often passed onto someone within the business itself that was being represented. This was so that the images of the detained goods could be assessed.

Even where the notification was initially sent to someone in the business being counterfeited, the notification was sometimes passed to someone closer to the product being counterfeited for better assessment of the photographs.

The 10-day deadline to return the notification to the customs agent was more stressful for those who passed notifications onto others, and some felt the return window should be longer. This was because of the number of people involved in the assessments. Despite there being an option to extend this 10-day deadline within the UK AFA service, this option wasn’t mentioned by those who raised concern about this time window.

Information requests

Businesses sometimes request an image of the shipping label and bill of lading to obtain more details on the sender. While these labels typically log details such as the type and quantity of goods being carried, they also include information about the goods’ sender, including an address for their location. This is of high interest among businesses due to how difficult it is to obtain such details in other ways. Agents were described as quick to reply and willing to assist with businesses’ requests. However, businesses voiced desire for images of these labels to be included as standard in future detention notifications.

Sample requests

In rare cases, businesses request a physical sample of the goods for further analysis, particularly if a new counterfeiting method was suspected from the images included in the detention notification.

Actions taken by businesses following a counterfeit detention notification

The decision about what action to take following the detention of suspected counterfeit goods was guided by the same criteria used for all enforcement decision-making. This included consideration of current and future impact on revenue, potential for consumer harm and the nature of the counterfeiter, as far as businesses were aware.

In the vast majority of cases, businesses simply requested that the seized counterfeit goods be destroyed. Businesses almost never faced any costs for this.

The intelligence gathered from detentions was a key driver for further case building. For example, if the consignee details revealed a repeat offender or a large commercial operation, businesses would use this information to strengthen a case for potential legal action. In one example, a large seizure of dangerous counterfeit hair straighteners was identified through the AFA service. The business referred the case to the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit for further investigation, despite this ending unsuccessfully due to false identities being used by the counterfeiters.

“We were able to see a lot of repeat infringers, and then we can build cases, and then we can build bigger cases from that side, which has been really handy.”

Large registered business, apparel and clothing

Experiences with the counterfeit detention notification process

Businesses were consistently positive about the counterfeit detention process itself, even while expressing frustration about the number of seizures.

When a detention did occur, businesses described the process as a well-functioning and valuable part of the AFA service. The key positive aspects businesses highlighted were:

• the efficiency and speed of the process: participants described the process as “straightforward”, “quick” and “efficient”. They were happy with the simple system of receiving an email notification and returning a signed PDF form
• the professionalism of customs agents: officers who handled detentions were described as “ responsive”, “prompt”, and “willing to help”. Businesses reported positive experiences when asking for more information or additional photos of seized goods
• the high accuracy of detentions: a key positive point raised by businesses was that almost all goods detained by Border Force were correctly identified as counterfeit. This added significant trust to the capability of the Border Force agents for those who received goods’ detentions notifications
• the value of the information provided: the importer and exporter details included in detention notifications were seen as critically important. This intelligence was considered more reliable than online data and was essential for building larger enforcement cases against repeat offenders
• the quality of evidence: businesses appreciated receiving good quality photos of the seized goods as part of the initial notification. One participant noted this was a significant benefit compared to the process in other countries, where they might have to pay a fee before seeing any images

“I think it’s been a 100% success rate in my whole career of goods that are detained that are actually counterfeit.”

Large registered business, fast moving consumer goods

However, in a few cases, some frustrations with the process were reported. A key issue was the lack of follow-up communication after a response was submitted. Businesses were often left unsure about the next steps.

“We were expecting a bit more information about what would happen after we sent in the form. For example, had they received our form, would they store the goods, or would they take any further action against the importer.”

Large registered business, entertainment

Another source of frustration was the inconsistent provision of information. Details from shipping labels are vital for building larger cases, but businesses often had to specifically ask for them. Many felt that an image of the shipping label or bill of lading should be included as standard in every notification.

In one case, a business reported that crucial evidence was destroyed by customs despite a specific request to preserve it for an ongoing investigation. This was attributed to a communication breakdown between different teams or shifts.

UK AFA service performance

Registered businesses were broadly satisfied with the administrative aspects of the UK AFA service. As outlined throughout the experiences of registered businesses, the UK AFA registration process and the handling of individual detentions were seen as broadly effective and efficient. The AFA team at HMRC were also seen as knowledgeable and effective at responding to communications.

However, participants were also asked in interviews how much the current UK AFA service was meeting their expectations overall. At this stage of interviews, a consistent frustration emerged across the sample regarding the overall performance of the UK AFA service in recent years.

There was a strong and consistent view across different sectors that the number of counterfeit interceptions in the UK has dramatically declined. Businesses that used to receive daily or weekly notifications reported that they now only receive a handful each year.

Some businesses felt that the time they invested in maintaining their AFA was beginning to outweigh the results they were seeing. The low interception rate in the UK was often contrasted with much higher rates in other European countries like the Netherlands, Germany and Spain as observed via businesses’ EU AFA registrations.

“It’s a disappointment regarding the UK service. You want the service to be as good as it can be. I just know that when they’re not picking things up for years, there’s a problem.”

Large registered business, entertainment

The most significant impact of this decline was the loss of intelligence. Without seizures, businesses were unable to gather the information needed to identify trends, track offenders, or build enforcement cases.

“Without the actions of Border Force as a first line of defence, I’m not able to gather information that I can turn into intelligence. I can’t share that data and network and influence other parts of the supply chain like intermediaries like DHL who have their own risk profiling. They do a lot on their side to flag suspected counterfeits to customs.”

Large registered business, fast moving consumer goods

Perceived drivers for the decline

Businesses speculated that the decline in interceptions was driven by a shift in priorities at the UK border. They believed that resources were being reallocated away from intellectual property enforcement. The new focus was perceived to be on immigration or on goods where duties could be charged, such as alcohol and tobacco.

While some understood that other enforcement priorities might have a higher public profile, they did not feel this justified the decline. They argued that the state has a duty to monitor borders for dangerous and illicit counterfeit goods.

Impact on renewal intentions

Despite these frustrations about the decline in interception rates, all registered businesses planned to continue renewing their AFA. The fact that the service is free to use was a key motivator for this decision.

“Why not [renew]? We need as many tools as we can and this is one of them. It’s not a very effective tool for our industry at the moment in this country, but it’s a tool.”

Small registered business, entertainment

A small number of participants speculated that this intention to renew could change in the future. They shared their perceptions that senior management teams may soon question the significant internal resource allocated to a service delivered declining results. External representatives including IP attorneys and brand protection agencies also highlighted how client relationships were becoming more strained, with more justifications needed as to why clients should continue to put time into their AFA registrations, even when managed externally by an outsourced team.

While these businesses and external representatives confirmed that AFA registrations would continue to be renewed, they were asked what they might do if their organisation decided to stop. Several said they had already considered relying on the ex-officio AFA instead, which would mean allowing their current registrations to lapse. Their main motivation was to recover internal time and effort previously spent on annual renewal processes. The ex-officio AFA allows unregistered businesses to be notified by customs when potentially counterfeit goods are intercepted at UK borders. They viewed this as a practical, lower-effort alternative that still offered a degree of protection against counterfeits.

6.2 Experiences of the UK AFA among unregistered businesses

This section details the perceptions and experiences of businesses that do not use the UK AFA service. The findings are based on in-depth interviews with 8 businesses that did not hold a UK AFA at the time of the research, including two businesses that had previously held an AFA which had since lapsed. Dedicated findings on lapsed service users can be found in the following section.

Unregistered businesses were not given any information about the UK AFA service before interviews. This was to ensure their initial, unprompted awareness could be accurately captured. During the interviews, they were shown a standard service definition provided by HMRC. This allowed for prompted feedback on the service’s features, benefits, and potential barriers to registration.

Awareness of the UK Application for Action service

Awareness of the AFA service among unregistered businesses was low. None of the 6 businesses that had not previously held an AFA had heard of the service before being contacted for this research.

Several participants did have a general awareness that border agencies have the power to seize illicit goods. For example, they had sometimes seen news stories about seizures at the border. However, they were not aware that there was a specific, free service that intellectual property rights holders could register for to assist with this process.

“I certainly am aware that the border agency has this function, but I know very little about it at all.”

Small unregistered business, manufacturing

Initial understanding of the service

After being introduced to the concept of the service, unregistered businesses reacted positively. They immediately understood its core purpose as a ‘monitoring service’ for physical goods at the border. They described this as a potentially valuable offering for businesses concerned about counterfeiting.

They initially focussed on the operational details of the service and were particularly interested in understanding how customs agents identify and select suspicious goods for inspection. They felt they needed more information on the mechanisms behind the service.

“There’s so much coming in, what mechanism do they have for scanning, checking etcetera? It sounds like an amazing amount of work.”

Small unregistered business, manufacturing

Two key themes emerged at this early stage. Firstly, the service has a very low profile among businesses that are not already engaged with intellectual property protection networks. This supported findings from registered businesses, who also felt more needed to be done to promote the service.

Secondly, unregistered businesses generally did not believe they were at significant risk of counterfeiting. Without high visibility in the market or experience of previous infringement incidents, many questioned if they had a problem that the service could solve. For example. this view was held within a large unregistered fast moving consumer goods business, where the participant described a “chicken and egg” situation. They would only know if counterfeiting was an issue once registered for the AFA service, but without believing there was an issue, they were hesitant to register.

“If I don’t think we have a counterfeit issue, perhaps only by registering would I know”.

Large unregistered business, fast moving consumer goods

Feedback on the UK Application for Action service definition

Businesses were shown an official HMRC service definition to provide a basis for more detailed feedback. The definition explained the purpose of the service, the role of Border Force, the 10-day decision window, and the liability for costs. This service definition can be found within the business discussion guide within the Appendix.

Feedback from unregistered businesses included some positive interpretations of the AFA service. For example, the free registration was a significant positive point. For the small businesses in particular within the unregistered sample, the fact that the service was free to register for was the main reason they remained interested in learning more.

Unregistered businesses also recognised the benefit of having protection across all UK points of entry. This was perceived to be a highly valuable aspect of the AFA service offering, offering significant benefit in return for minimal time commitment from the business perspective.

However, unregistered business feedback was quickly dominated by strong concerns about the financial liability clause within the service definition. This single issue overshadowed many of the service’s benefits.

Specifically, the mention of uncapped costs for storage, handling, and destruction of goods created significant anxiety. For small unregistered businesses in particular, this risk was perceived to be a major deterrent to registration. One participant stated that for a small company like theirs, unknown costs could easily sink the business.

The service definition additionally mentioned a 10-day window for the business to confirm an infringement. However, this detail was not recognised among unregistered businesses and did not reduce unregistered businesses’ concerns about costs. Many understood that costs would begin to accumulate from the moment goods were detained, due to further information included later in the service definition. As a result, the 10-day window that businesses had to confirm infringement was broadly overlooked.

“The description about all the associated costs makes it seem like either way… there’s a cost. The priority is the identification… but the cost is an uncomfortable element of it because it is unknown, and no one likes things that are unknown.”

Small unregistered business, manufacturing

The additional mention of potential liability for legal costs within the service definition was an even greater risk factor. This instinctively steered many towards what was seen as a ‘safer option’ of not registering at all, to avoid exposing their business to unclear financial risk.

Barriers to registering for a UK Application for Action

Overall, businesses were tentatively open to the concept of the service, but four key barriers created significant hesitancy. These barriers had the potential to delay or prevent them from signing up.

Belief they do not face a counterfeiting risk

Smaller unregistered businesses questioned whether their brands were well known enough to be targeted by counterfeiters. Without a clear and present danger, registering for a preventative service did not feel like a priority. This aligns with the experiences of some registered businesses, who noted that they only upgraded their intellectual property protection strategy after a high impact infringement incident.

Lack of awareness and knowledge

Many small, unregistered businesses felt unsure about what an effective intellectual property protection strategy should involve. Because they were unaware of the AFA service, it was not part of their consideration. When they did look for information, they tended to rely on their own desk research or free legal advice.

“The problem that the service has got is that no one knows about it. The fact it has a low profile might just be its Achilles’ heel.”

Small unregistered business, digital training

Costs and financial liabilities

The risk of financial liability was the most significant barrier for unregistered businesses. While the research with registered businesses found they rarely faced any costs, the perception of financial risk among non-users was a powerful deterrent. They felt that without upfront information on the likely scale of costs, they could not make an informed decision. This created an additional task for them to research potential costs before they would consider registering.

“Good business is nothing more than managing risk. My issue is that you’re handing over a process to someone who hasn’t told you how much it’s going to cost. My risk-o-meter is starting to point to the red.”

Small unregistered business, digital training

Doubt about how the service works

Unregistered businesses were sceptical about the mechanics of interception. They wanted more evidence of how the service works and how effective it is before they would invest time in it. Participants frequently raised questions such as “How do they [Border Force agents] know?”, “Is it a random thing?” and “What is the criteria for stopping?”.

This lack of clarity on the operational process was described as being an equally significant barrier to the concern over costs.

Key perceived benefits of the service

After discussing their concerns, businesses were asked to consider the main benefits of the service. Despite their reservations, they identified several valuable aspects.

The key perceived benefits were:

• an early warning system: most saw the service as a useful ‘watch service’ at the border, providing an alert if suspicious goods were found
• blocking shipments: businesses recognised the unique value of a service that stops counterfeit goods from entering the UK market in the first place
• revenue and brand protection: the service was seen as a way to protect sales and the company’s reputation from the damage caused by inferior counterfeit products
• free registration: this was repeatedly mentioned as a key benefit, and often the main reason why businesses would consider looking into the service further
• a decision window: after further discussion, some businesses saw the 10-day window as a positive feature, giving them time to properly assess a potential infringement
• a potential deterrent: one business suggested that if the service and its successes were more widely publicised, its existence could act as a deterrent to counterfeiters

“I think definitely it could contribute to protecting us. It sounds like it gives one extra tool for IP owners, and it would be good to know that there is something protecting goods leaving or coming into the country.”

Small unregistered business, food and beverage

“Protecting the company’s image, I guess, is a major one… if you’ve got other companies trying to swarm the market, that could be quite a good way to detect them. So, I think protecting against unscrupulous competitors and criminals, protecting the good will of the brand, I guess.”

Small unregistered business, advanced manufacturing

Future intentions to register for a UK Application for Action

Overall, the AFA service being free to register for was a strong motivating factor for registration. However, all of the unregistered businesses said they would need to do more research and have internal discussions before signing up. Their intentions were split between a cautious ‘wait and see’ approach and an intention to potentially explore it further, depending on certain conditions.

Around half of the businesses described a ‘wait and see’ approach. They were interested in the service as a way to find out if they had a counterfeit problem. However, they would only proceed after conducting internal reviews and seeking a better understanding of the likely costs.

The other half were open to consider registration. They saw the value in the service and wanted to discuss it with colleagues or business partners. However, their decision to register would depend on getting clearer information about the potential costs and how the interception process works in practice.

“It’s good to know that it exists, and as part of the IP protection for the business it would be definitely worth considering. I think if we were in that position where we thought it could be useful to us, then we would have to get the cost aspect approved formally through the board.”

Small unregistered business, advanced manufacturing

“It sounds like a good idea but I’m anxious about the ongoing costs, not knowing what it could mount up to.”

Small unregistered business, manufacturing

Experiences of lapsed AFA service users

This section details the experiences of businesses in the sample whose UK AFA had expired.

The research methodology did not specifically recruit for lapsed users. However, this group emerged naturally from the main sample. Their experiences provide valuable insight into the challenges of maintaining a registration and the factors that influence re-registration.

In total, 4 businesses in the sample had experienced a lapsed AFA. These businesses were a mix of small and large companies, and their reasons for lapsing varied. They can be broadly categorised into two groups.

The first category were businesses who had held a single AFA that had lapsed. This category included:

• a large manufacturing business with a 3-person brand protection team. The representative for this business was unclear on the status of their application. They only discovered it had expired in February 2024 after checking as part of the eligibility screening for the research study. They felt demotivated to re-register due to the lack of any outreach from HMRC, either before or after the application expired.
• a small manufacturing business with a single employee. This participant misunderstood the one-year validity period of the UK service. They had assumed it lasted for the same length of time as their trademark registration. They only realised their application had lapsed during the research interview and confirmed that they intended to renew it.

The second category were businesses that held multiple applications for different brands or markets, one of which had lapsed. This category included:

• a large food and beverage company with a single-person brand protection function. The participant explained they had missed their own reminder in their calendar a couple of months before the interview. They intended to renew but were delaying the process because of the administrative burden involved in starting a completely new application. They speculated it would take 1-2 full days of admin to process the re-registration.
• a large media business with multiple brand protection teams. This company had also missed a calendar reminder during a period of internal re-organisation following a merger. They also intended to re-register and stated no hesitancies or barriers to doing so.

Reasons for lapsed applications

The experiences of both lapsed and registered businesses across the full sample highlighted a key challenge; the need to self-manage renewal deadlines without any automated notifications from HMRC. This was seen as the primary cause of applications lapsing and was a frustration raised by businesses who had not experienced a lapse in their AFA registration.

The renewal process itself, which involves sending an email to the AFA team, was seen as simple and straightforward. However, businesses were not reminded when their application was about to expire. They received no alert when the 30-day renewal window opened, or as the final deadline approached.

“The only issue I have with Customs is that they don’t remind me. Even though I set my own reminder, I missed it. I wish they would set up a system.”

Large partially lapsed business, food and beverage

This lack of official reminders meant that lapsed applications in the sample were caused by two main factors.

The first was simply human error, where businesses missed their own internal calendar notifications. The second was a misunderstanding of the service’s one-year validity period. This confusion was often caused by comparing the UK service to:

• intellectual property registrations, such as trademarks, which are typically valid for 10 years
• AFA services in other markets, such as the EU, where registrations can last for 5 or 10 years

One participant who had missed their deadline highlighted the strictness of the system.

“They’re very strict on that [renewal], and if you don’t get it done within those specific 30 days, you have to submit the whole application again. It could be a lot easier, and they could be more flexible.”

Large partially lapsed business, entertainment

Intentions to re-register

Most businesses whose applications had lapsed said that they planned to re-register. However, their intention to do so was affected by several key considerations that caused delay and doubt.

The inability to reinstate a previous application

A significant barrier to re-registering was that a lapsed application cannot simply be renewed. Businesses explained they needed to start the entire process from scratch and submit a completely new application. They were not able to pull through any of the data from their previous submission.

This creates a significant administrative burden, which was a key reason for delaying re-registration. One lapsed user who intended to renew had not yet done so because of this.

“Now I can’t renew it, I have to actually apply again. It’s just timing right now to get the time to be able to get the form, fill it all in with all our trademarks. Literally, it’s just paperwork that’s holding me back.”

Large partially lapsed business, food and beverage

The impact of no official communication

The lack of communication from HMRC after an application had lapsed also had a negative impact. One lapsed user was particularly influenced by this. They had received no follow-up from HMRC after their application expired. They felt this suggested that the service was not concerned that the business was no longer registered.

This raised further doubts for them about how valuable the service really was, to either the business or to HMRC. They stated that this lack of outreach made them question whether they would re-register at all.

“It expired on 14 February 2024 and as I say I’ve had no further encouragement. If someone came back to us and really resold the service we’d consider it. But at this time, it’s very vague what it actually does.”

Large lapsed business, manufacturing

Concern about the return on investment

The decision about whether to re-register was also influenced by the wider frustration about the decline in border interceptions. Some participants questioned the value of investing time and resources into a service that they felt was delivering diminishing returns. This was particularly true when comparing the low seizure rates in the UK to much higher rates in other markets. For example, several participants stated higher seizure rates in EU markets, most frequently calling out the Irish and Dutch borders. Specifically, one large automotive manufacturer stated they received on average 20-30 interceptions at the Dutch border annually, or one to two interceptions per month. They compared this to receiving one to two interceptions at the UK border per year.

6.3 Summary

Overall, interviews showed that the UK AFA service is widely regarded as an essential first line of defence against counterfeit goods, uniquely capable of stopping counterfeit goods before they enter the market. Beyond interception, AFA detentions additionally generate valuable intelligence for brands, supporting case-building and enabling legal enforcement against repeat or high-impact counterfeiters.

The AFA registration and detention processes were described as straightforward and effective. However, many participants expressed concern about what they perceived as a decline in the UK’s interception rate. This was often attributed to resource reallocation and a broader de-prioritisation of IP protection at the border, raising questions about enforcement capacity.

For businesses managing larger IP portfolios, the inability to view or edit applications after initial registration was seen as a key inefficiency. Participants noted that introducing this functionality would significantly reduce administrative burdens and improve the overall usability of the system.

Among unregistered businesses, awareness of the AFA service was generally very low, with most not perceiving themselves as at risk of counterfeiting. Additional barriers included uncertainty about costs and limited understanding of how the interception process operates. Together, these factors contributed to a cautious approach to registering with the service among smaller firms.

Finally, within the sample, four businesses reported having allowed their UK AFA registration to lapse, either as their only UK AFA or as part of a wider portfolio. Most attributed this to missing the renewal window, though some also expressed confusion about the duration of AFA validity. Businesses who had not lapsed in their AFA registration also voiced support for system-based renewal reminders.

7. Development opportunities for the UK AFA

This section explores potential development opportunities for the UK AFA service. It draws on businesses’ experiences with equivalent services in other countries to identify areas for improvement.

The section outlines a series of recommendations from businesses, ranging from critical, urgent areas for development to longer term priorities. It also provides specific suggestions from both registered and unregistered businesses on how to increase registration and engagement with the service.

7.1 Experiences of non-UK AFA services

Large, registered businesses with global operations often compared the UK AFA service to its international counterparts. The most frequently mentioned was the EU’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Portal (IPEP). Participants described how the EU’s portal, which became mandatory for AFA coverage across all 27 member states in October 2024, acts as a live, interactive database. Businesses highlighted several key benefits of this system that are not available in the UK.

While businesses recognised the significant investment required to build such a system, its features were seen as highly attractive.

The main benefits of the EU portal that participants described included the ability to:

• draw on interlinked government databases to automatically load and manage intellectual property rights within an application
• make direct edits to their application online, removing the need for email-based updates
• grant access to external representatives while retaining oversight of their portfolio
• share selected intelligence with law enforcement bodies and other brands to strengthen protection
• upload new intelligence and track the progress of detentions over time

The EU system was described as easier and more streamlined than the UK’s process. The ability for the online portal to automatically pull in all registered trademarks was a particularly valued feature. This contrasted sharply with the UK’s manual, email-driven process.

“The UK system must be able to be connected. You enter the brand, the rights owner’s name, it should be able to pull on it rather than me printing out a form, searching out all the trademark numbers, ensuring that I’ve got the right numbers… It’s automatically there with the EU one, you just click, literally click checkboxes to add them to your AFA.”

Large partially lapsed business, food and beverage

Despite the appeal of the EU portal, businesses felt strongly that some aspects of the UK service worked well and should be retained. It was seen as essential that detention notifications continue to be sent directly by email. This is because of the tight 10-day response window. The upfront inclusion of good quality photos and details of the seized goods in UK notifications was also seen as a major asset.

Beyond the application process, the interception rates of other countries’ services were consistently highlighted as being much higher than in the UK. The service in the Netherlands was repeatedly praised for its high frequency of interceptions. Businesses also cited Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Turkey as having more active border enforcement for intellectual property rights. The UK’s interception rate was repeatedly described as low in comparison.

7.2 Perceived opportunities for UK Application for Action development

Businesses identified a range of potential improvements for the UK service. These were grouped into tiers, from critical updates that were felt to be needed urgently, to longer term development opportunities. Please note that the findings in this section of the report reflect the experiences and views of participants and should not be interpreted as formal recommendations.

Critical development areas

These were a small number of issues that businesses felt were essential to address to improve the core functionality and user experience of the service.

The critical areas for development included:

• increasing the number of interceptions at border locations to reverse the recent decline that has been observed by many businesses
• setting up an automated system to send reminders to businesses before their application is due to expire
• improving the online application system so that users do not have to log out and start again to submit a second application

High priority development areas

These were matters that were considered important to address in the short to medium term to reduce the administrative burden of registering for and using the AFA service.

The high priority areas included:

• adding the ability for businesses to bulk-upload their intellectual property information using a spreadsheet
• introducing auto-population and data re-use features to the application process, so that company details and registered rights can be saved and selected easily
• ensuring that an image of the shipping label or bill of lading is included as standard in all detention notifications

“This is what I thought it would be like, like the gov.uk website which is so good. But when it comes to AFA registration, I thought it would automatically complete the information… The dream would be you just have to type the registration number in, and then it auto-populates all that trademark’s information.”

Large business, manufacturing

Medium priority development areas

These were broader developments over the longer term that businesses felt would greatly improve the value of the service.

The medium priority areas included:

• creating an online portal where businesses can view and manage their applications, submit intelligence, and track cases
• developing a more joined-up approach between Border Force, Trading Standards, the police, PIPCU, the Intellectual Property Office, and HMRC to improve intelligence sharing and interception outcomes
• improving the guidance available to businesses on what to include in their brand identification guides

“If there was a dedicated portal to see, these are all my applications…then law enforcement could add questions in there, and it would also be a place where you could track cases.”

Large registered business, entertainment

Lower priority development areas

These areas were seen as features that would add further value to the UK AFA service.

The lower priority areas included:

• creating a mechanism for sharing intelligence with other brands and with intermediaries such as freight forwarders, similar to the EU portal
• including information in detention notifications about the number of other brands’ goods found in the same shipment, to help businesses assess the scale of the operation, even if communicated anonymously without naming any specific brands
• re-introducing ‘intensification weeks’ where brand representatives can assist customs agents at postal hubs

7.3 Business recommendations for increasing UK AFA registration

Businesses offered a range of suggestions on how to encourage more intellectual property rights holders to register for the UK AFA service. Their suggestions focussed on removing the key barriers and better promoting the key benefits.

Unregistered businesses, who were mostly small, highlighted four areas that would need to be addressed to overcome their specific barriers.

Their recommendations were to:

• encourage businesses to be proactive about their intellectual property protection
• raise the profile of the service by providing clear information on what a wider brand protection strategy looks like, and where the AFA fits within that
• provide upfront and transparent information about the potential costs of a detention, with clear examples of average fees and the specific circumstances in which they might apply
• publish a simple explanation of how customs agents know which goods to intercept and how the notification process works, to address scepticism and build trust in the service

“I’d need a clear outline of costs with minimum and maximum of what you can expect to pay, and an explanation of how and why they expect to intercept goods.”

Small unregistered business, manufacturing

Registered businesses were also asked how they would promote the service to their peers. They highlighted a number of key benefits that they felt should be more strongly emphasised in any communications.

Their key promotional messages included:

• the service is completely free to register for
• it provides a first line of defence, stopping goods before they reach the market
• detentions provide access to invaluable intelligence on counterfeiters
• businesses have a 10-day window to make a decision after a seizure
• registration can be managed in-house without the need for expensive legal representatives
• the service helps agents at the border to know who to contact when they find infringing products

One participant suggested that a high profile publicity campaign would be an effective way to raise awareness among both businesses and the public. They also felt it would act as a powerful deterrent to counterfeiters.

7.4 Summary

In summary, the EU’s integrated and automated IPEP portal was widely viewed as a strong example of a modern, online system that enables more efficient IP enforcement. The system’s ability to auto-populate IP rights, support direct online edits, and facilitate real-time case tracking and intelligence sharing was seen as particularly valuable for businesses managing large IP portfolios.

At the same time, several aspects of the current UK AFA system were considered worth retaining. The automatic email notifications for goods’ detentions were highlighted as enabling fast response times, while the inclusion of images as standard was seen as a practical and effective feature that aids identification.

However, businesses also identified clear opportunities for improvement within the UK AFA system. The most urgent needs included increasing interception rates and introducing system enhancements to remind users when their AFA is nearing expiry, alongside the ability to renew an application without being logged out.

Finally, to drive greater adoption of the UK AFA, especially among smaller businesses, participants emphasised the importance of promoting a more proactive culture of IP protection. Raising awareness of the AFA service, alongside providing clearer guidance on costs and interception processes, was seen as key to encouraging wider engagement and uptake.