Selective Crackdowns? Counterfeit Culture and the Enforcement Gap in Trinidad and Tobago

By SHIVANNA KITWAROO

     Attorney-at-Law

     BSc (Hons), LL.B (Hons), LPC (Dist)

On 8^th September 2025, DB Funstyles Clothing Limited conceded a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by international sportswear manufacturers Nike Innovate CV and Puma SE. The recent agreement for a Penal retailer to destroy more than 8,000 pairs of counterfeit Nike and Puma slippers owing to the trademark dispute has sparked debate far beyond the walls of the courtroom. On the surface, it seems like a straightforward victory for intellectual property rights, a global brand defending its trademark against counterfeit goods. However, beneath that outcome lies a pressing question, why does enforcement in Trinidad and Tobago so often appear selective, leaving some businesses to shoulder the full brunt of the law while others continue to operate with impunity?

Walk into countless shops across the country, particularly discount outlets and ‘Chinese-run’ stores, and one can find counterfeit products on open display. From slippers to jerseys, handbags to electronics, the trade in imitation goods is not only common, it has become normalized. Many consumers knowingly purchase these items, attracted by the affordability and the lookalike appeal of international brands without the high price tag.

This creates an uneven playing field. Local retailers who attempt to follow the rules, or who are unlucky enough to be targeted, suffer losses, reputational harm, and legal consequences, while others benefit from steady demand with little fear of enforcement action.

The Penal case is emblematic. Trademark holders like Nike and Puma often push for enforcement by filing complaints or cooperating with Customs. Raids and seizures usually follows such actions, however, these crackdowns tend to focus on isolated businesses, rather than applying consistently across the retail landscape. For every container of counterfeit goods seized, dozens slip through the cracks and make their way onto store shelves.

This piecemeal approach undermines the credibility of our legal system. If one retailer is required to destroy thousands of dollars in merchandise while another openly sells counterfeit goods down the road, it raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and the even application of the law.

The reasons for this unevenness are complex. Limited resources, competing law enforcement priorities, and the sheer scale of the counterfeit trade all contribute. There is also a heavy reliance on trademark holders themselves to initiate complaints, meaning that enforcement often depends on the vigilance of global corporations rather than a consistent national policy.

Nonetheless, the effect is the same: businesses feel that enforcement is unpredictable, and consumers are left with mixed signals about what is acceptable and what is not.

Weak and selective enforcement has ripple effects. Legitimate businesses are discouraged from competing fairly, consumers are exposed to potentially unsafe products, and Trinidad and Tobago risks developing a reputation as a haven for counterfeit trade. Moreover, uneven application of the law erodes trust in institutions, giving the impression that enforcement is arbitrary rather than principled.

Addressing this issue requires a coordinated approach. Customs and law enforcement agencies must strengthen monitoring at ports of entry to prevent counterfeit goods from flooding the market in the first place. Enforcement must be consistent across all retailers, not just when a case attracts headlines. And consumers must be educated on the broader impact of supporting counterfeit trade, including its harm to legitimate businesses and the economy at large.

The Penal case should not be viewed in isolation. It should serve as a wake-up call, a reminder that if Trinidad and Tobago is serious about upholding intellectual property laws, enforcement must be fair, transparent, and uniform. Anything less only deepens the uneven playing field for businesses and undermines confidence in the system.