Measures to Counter the Online Sale of Counterfeit Goods

Structural Vulnerabilities of Online Trade

Counterfeit sellers exploit four structural features of digital marketplaces. First, anonymity: sellers register under pseudonyms with minimal identity data, making enforcement dependent on intermediaries. Second, operational agility: once a listing or account is blocked, a new one can be created within hours at negligible cost. Third, cross border complexity: goods may be stored in China, sold through a Kazakh platform by a seller resident in a third jurisdiction, complicating service of process and evidence collection. Fourth, scale: a single seller can reach the entire domestic market and the Eurasian Economic Union through a unified product card. These features transform trademark infringement from a local retail problem into a systemic regulatory challenge.

The economic consequences extend beyond private losses. Counterfeit trade deprives the state of tax revenue, distorts competition, undermines investment in quality and innovation, and exposes consumers to goods that fall outside mandatory safety and conformity standards. In 2025 alone, more than 205,000 counterfeit items worth approximately 17 million tenge were seized in Kazakhstan, illustrating both the scale of the problem and the limits of ex post enforcement.

From Passive Hosting to Active Gatekeeping

Current legislation requires electronic trading platforms to maintain procedures aimed at preventing unlawful trade, but in practice rights holders must still identify infringements, submit formal notices and pursue fragmented information through marketplaces, courts and state bodies. This model is no longer sustainable. Platforms that determine product presentation, process payments, control logistics and earn commissions should be treated as active gatekeepers, not passive hosts.

A robust legal framework should impose three core obligations. Verified seller onboarding must require identification of the legal entity or individual entrepreneur, beneficial ownership, warehouse location and documents confirming the lawful origin of goods. For regulated products, listing should be conditional upon a valid certificate or declaration of conformity. Rapid notice and action procedures must oblige platforms to suspend infringing listings, preserve evidence, prevent immediate relisting and issue reasoned decisions within fixed timeframes. Proportionate liability should increase where a platform has knowledge of infringement and fails to act, or where it exercises editorial or algorithmic control over the display and promotion of goods. This approach aligns with emerging policy proposals in Kazakhstan to verify conformity documents and restrict unreliable sellers from marketplaces.

Integrated Enforcement Toolkit

Rights holders should combine preventive and remedial measures. Preventive tools include trademark registration, customs recordal of intellectual property objects to trigger border notifications, and systematic monitoring of marketplaces, social networks and messaging applications using keyword and image searches. Remedial tools span administrative, civil and criminal tracks. Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for fines and confiscation in cases of unlawful trademark use, while Article 222 of the Criminal Code applies where substantial damage is established. Civil proceedings may seek cessation, compensation, destruction of counterfeit goods and disclosure of seller information. Where an internet resource unlawfully uses a trademark or misleads consumers through copied branding or packaging, the Ministry of Justice may restrict access to that resource.

A Continuous Compliance Cycle

Effective anti counterfeiting strategy is not a one off action but a continuous cycle: registration, customs recordal, proactive monitoring, verified onboarding, rapid takedown, evidence preservation and coordinated enforcement. Only by shifting responsibility toward platforms that exercise real commercial control can Kazakhstan ensure that digital marketplaces serve as channels for legitimate trade rather than legal neutral zones for counterfeit goods.