The Two Sides of a Counterfeit Seizure

A shipment arrives at a U.S. port. CBP inspects it, decides the goods bear a counterfeit trademark, and seizes them. From that single event, two letters go out to two very different people — and their situations could not be more opposite. One is the importer whose goods just vanished into government custody, now facing a bill that can equal the full retail value of the merchandise. The other is the brand owner, who just received a gift: confirmation that the enforcement system is working, plus a detailed dossier on who tried to bring the fakes in.

Understanding both sides of a counterfeit seizure is not just an academic exercise. It explains why the seizure happened, what each party can do next, and how the same event that is a crisis for one party is an opportunity for the other. Our firm handles both sides of these matters, and this article lays out how each one unfolds.

Why the Seizure Happened in the First Place

CBP does not catch most counterfeits by luck. Behind a great many trademark seizures is a step the brand owner took long before the shipment sailed: recording its trademark with CBP through the agency’s Intellectual Property Rights e-Recordation system. Recordation loads the brand’s marks into the database CBP officers check against, effectively deputizing the agency to watch for that brand’s counterfeits at every port. When a shipment of fakes shows up, the recordation is what turns an ordinary inspection into a targeted seizure.

That single fact — that the seizure usually traces back to a brand owner’s affirmative enforcement step — is what creates the two-sided dynamic. One party set the trap; the other walked into it.

The Two Sides

The Importer’s Side: Seizure Plus a Steep Penalty

For the importer, a counterfeit seizure is worse than simply losing the shipment — though that happens too, through forfeiture. The sharper problem is the civil penalty. Under 19 U.S.C. 1526(f), importing goods bearing a counterfeit mark exposes the importer to a fine measured against what the goods would have been worth if genuine.

The 19 U.S.C. 1526(f) civil penalty

Violation	Maximum penalty
First violation	Up to the value the goods would have had if genuine, based on the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) at the time of seizure
Second and subsequent	Up to twice the genuine-goods MSRP value

The sting is in the measure. The penalty is not based on what the importer paid for the cheap fakes — it is based on the retail value of the authentic product the counterfeits imitate. A shipment that cost a few thousand dollars to acquire can generate a penalty measured against tens or hundreds of thousands in genuine retail value. On a repeat violation, that doubles. This is why a counterfeit seizure that looks like a modest loss on paper can become a business-threatening liability.

The importer is not without options. There is a process for responding to the seizure and penalty — petitioning for relief, contesting whether the goods are truly counterfeit, and raising the importer’s knowledge and circumstances. Some importers are genuinely caught out by a supplier who shipped counterfeits without their knowledge, and that matters to the analysis. Our pages on customs seizure defense and counterfeit import seizures and penalties cover the defense side in depth, and the petition for relief is the vehicle for challenging the outcome.

The Brand Owner’s Side: Intelligence, Not Just a Seizure

For the brand owner, the seizure is the beginning of something, not the end. When CBP seizes goods bearing a recorded mark, it does more than notify the rights holder that a seizure occurred — it can disclose meaningful information about the shipment.

This is why sophisticated brands treat CBP recordation as an intelligence-gathering tool as much as a defensive shield. Each seizure is a data point about who is attacking the brand and how, and the disclosure turns a border interception into leads the brand owner can act on well beyond the port. The counterfeit seizure that ends one importer’s shipment can begin the brand’s investigation into an entire counterfeiting operation.

Same Event, Opposite Playbooks

What each side does after the seizure

Question	Brand Owner	Importer
Goal	Leverage the seizure to stop the counterfeiter	Recover position and limit the penalty
Key tool	The 133.21 intelligence disclosure	The petition for relief and seizure defense
Financial angle	Potential recovery against the infringer	Contain the 1526(f) penalty exposure
Time pressure	Act on fresh intelligence	Respond within the seizure deadline

One Firm, Both Sides — But Never the Same Matter

Because these two roles are mirror images, experience on one side sharpens the work on the other. Knowing exactly what intelligence a brand owner receives after a seizure informs how to advise an importer about exposure; understanding how the penalty is measured and contested informs how to counsel a brand pursuing an infringer. Great Lakes Customs Law represents both brand owners protecting their marks and importers defending against seizures — though, as with any legal representation, never both sides of the same dispute.

If you are a brand owner weighing how to stop counterfeits at the border, our guide to recording your trademark with CBP walks through the recordation process that makes these seizures possible. If you are an importer whose goods have been seized as counterfeit, the priority is responding correctly and on time — and a customs and international trade lawyer can assess whether the goods are truly counterfeit, contest the penalty measure, and pursue relief. Either way, the seizure notice is the starting gun, and the clock is already running.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much is the penalty for importing counterfeit goods?

Under 19 U.S.C. 1526(f), a first violation can draw a civil penalty up to the value the goods would have had if genuine, based on the manufacturer’s suggested retail price at the time of seizure. A second or subsequent violation can be penalized up to twice that value. The measure is the authentic retail value, not what the importer paid for the counterfeits.

Why did CBP notify the brand owner about my seizure?

Because the brand likely recorded its trademark with CBP. When goods bearing a recorded mark are seized, CBP can disclose shipment information to the rights holder under 19 C.F.R. 133.21, including details that may identify the importer and manufacturer. That disclosure is part of how recordation-based enforcement works.

I didn’t know the goods were counterfeit. Am I still liable?

Possibly, but your knowledge and circumstances matter to the outcome. Importers are sometimes caught out by suppliers who ship counterfeits without their knowledge, and that can be relevant to contesting the penalty or seeking relief. The goods can still be seized, so responding correctly through the petition process is important.

Can a law firm represent both brand owners and importers?

Yes, a firm can represent brand owners in enforcement and importers in seizure defense as separate matters — but it cannot represent both sides of the same dispute. Experience on each side genuinely informs the other, which is an advantage in this area.