The market for counterfeit goods is climbing at a pace that shows no signs of slowing. In 2024, alone, United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) seized nearly $5 billion worth of counterfeit luxury, fashion, and footwear products. And if 2025 is any indication so far, that figure may soon be eclipsed. On August 6, for instance, CBP officers in Louisville intercepted a shipment containing more than 7,000 pairs of counterfeit Van Cleef & Arpels earrings – replicas of the brand’s iconic Alhambra design – with an estimated retail value of over $30.3 million if genuine. That bust came on the heels of three separate seizures in June involving counterfeit Cartier and Van Cleef jewelry, which, had they been authentic, would have been worth $25 million.
These headline-making interceptions are only a small part of a much larger trade in counterfeit goods that moves quietly through global supply chains. And while luxury houses invest heavily in litigation, online enforcement, and private investigations, the border remains one of the most effective – and under-leveraged – lines of defense.
From Registration to Real-Time Enforcement
At the heart of this defense is CBP’s ability to detain and seize infringing products before they enter U.S. commerce, but for CBP to act effectively, it must be equipped with the right information, which is where customs recordation comes in. Recording a federally registered trademark or copyright with CBP turns a passive registration into an active enforcement tool. Once on record, a brand’s intellectual property details – from product identifiers to authorized importers – are entered into a nationwide database accessible to customs officers at every port of entry.
When officers encounter a shipment that appears to be suspicious, they can detain it on the spot and notify the rights holder, providing import dates, ports of entry, product descriptions, quantities, countries of origin, and details on the manufacturer, exporter, and importer. In some cases, CBP will provide photographs for immediate verification. This information can be leveraged not only to stop a single shipment, but to map and disrupt entire counterfeit-making and -selling organizations, an especially critical capability given that counterfeiters are often part of larger, highly coordinated distribution networks that operate across multiple jurisdictions and modes of transport.
Recording rights with CBP is straightforward and inexpensive. Through its online IPRR portal, rights holders submit core registration and product details, pay a $190 filing fee per trademark class or copyright, and once approved, maintain the recordation for the life of the registration.
> A Global Perspective on Customs Enforcement: The counterfeit trade is global in scope, and many countries maintain customs recordation systems similar to the U.S. model. China, in particular, stands out as a strategic jurisdiction: not only is it the largest source of counterfeit goods, but it is also one of the few nations where customs authorities inspect outbound shipments. Registering rights with Chinese customs can therefore block infringing goods before they reach any foreign market.
For brands selling internationally, a coordinated approach to customs recordation – both in the U.S. and in key foreign jurisdictions – can create a multilayered net that is significantly harder for counterfeiters to evade.
The ITC Connection – Another Layer of Border Protection
In addition to carrying out its own seizures, CBP also executes exclusion orders issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”)’s administrative law judges. U.S. trademark owners can benefit from ITC action by petitioning the federal trade body – under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – to investigate the unlawful importation of infringing or counterfeit goods. These “337 investigations” resemble federal court proceedings in many respects, but they have notable advantages for rights holders.
Unlike federal courts, the ITC’s jurisdiction is not limited to specific defendants, meaning that a general exclusion order can apply to all infringing imports, regardless of importer identity. The ITC can issue both limited exclusion orders, targeting specific respondents, and general exclusion orders, covering all infringing goods from any source. In addition, it may grant cease-and-desist orders against companies with significant U.S. operations or inventory. While the ITC cannot award monetary damages, it can impose substantial civil penalties – including daily fines – for violations of its orders.
One limitation is that only companies demonstrating a sufficient domestic industry in connection with the protected intellectual property may bring a Section 337 complaint. Both registered and common law trademark rights can be the basis for such a case, provided the domestic industry requirement is met. Once the ITC issues an exclusion order, CBP enforces it at U.S. borders, integrating this judicial remedy directly into its broader customs enforcement framework, thereby providing another powerful layer of protection against the importation of counterfeit and infringing goods.
Closing Loopholes
Recent policy changes are also reshaping the customs enforcement landscape. On August 29, the Trump Administration formally extinguished the “de minimis: loophole, which generally allowed shipments of goods worth $800 or less to sidestep import tariffs and customs scrutiny. The closure of the loophole now means that shipment details must be reported to CBP and duties must be paid on all packages, including those from counterfeit hubs like China and Hong Kong, regardless of value.
This expanded reporting requirement is expected to provide CBP with a richer stream of data on the origin, routing, and declared contents of shipments that were previously invisible to frontline enforcement. It will also create additional touchpoints where brand owners can engage directly with customs officials – supplying product identification guidance, conducting targeted training at ports that see high volumes of low-value parcels, and sharing intelligence on emerging counterfeiting trends. These developments present an opportunity for brands to work hand-in-hand with CBP to intercept infringing goods at a scale and speed that has historically been difficult to achieve.
The Strategic Takeaway
The growth of the counterfeit trade, combined with new enforcement tools, is reshaping how brands protect their intellectual property at the border. Customs recordation remains a core tactic, giving CBP the data it needs to stop suspect shipments and dismantle trafficking networks, while ITC exclusion orders add reach by covering all infringing imports, not just those tied to named defendants.
The closure of the “de minimis” loophole brings a third advantage: mandatory reporting and duty payment on low-value shipments from high-risk jurisdictions will give CBP unprecedented visibility into a channel long exploited by counterfeiters, improving targeting and creating new opportunities for brand–customs collaboration through product guides, officer training, and intelligence sharing.
Together, these measures mark a shift from reactive enforcement to a proactive, coordinated, and intelligence-driven approach.
For brands, the message is clear: Those that build strong, ongoing partnerships with customs now will be best positioned to limit the volume of counterfeit goods in the market and protect their valuable intellectual property in the process.
Share
