Table 1

Traditional anti-counterfeiting approaches

Type of counterfeitingAnti-counterfeiting measureDescriptionMain weaknesses
Downstream counterfeitingProduct/packaging-related measuresMeasures aimed at making the replication of original products or packaging more complex and expensive. They include overt technologies (e.g. holograms, watermarks and seals), covert technologies (e.g. machine-readable ink and hidden printed messages) and products/packaging upgrades (Li, 2013)

  1. Unsuitability for average users: product authentication can require specific equipment, training, or the involvement of trained inspectors, such as public or private certification bodies or law enforcement services (Li, 2013)

  2. Packaging cloning: these measures can be subject to cloning and reuse on counterfeit products (Pustjens et al., 2016)

  3. No protection against upstream counterfeiting*: these measures do not prevent potential unfair practices, such as food adulteration and non-compliance with compulsory production specifications

Customer information/education-related measuresMeasures aimed at informing final customers, intermediaries (e.g. distributors and resellers) and public agencies about how detrimental counterfeiting is and educate to autonomously distinguish between authentic and counterfeit products (Stevenson and Busby, 2015)

  1. Unsuitability for average users: these measures cannot be applied for those goods for which costumers cannot be educated to autonomously distinguish genuine from counterfeit products (e.g. drugs, wine) (Lybecker, 2007)

  2. No protection against upstream counterfeiting: these measures do not educate customers to recognize if unfair practices occurred before the product is sold

Upstream counterfeitingProcess-related measures: on-field auditsMeasures aimed at authenticating product consistency with production regulations by means of external auditors that collect on-field evidence. They include analysis of documentation processes as well as chemical/physical/organoleptic analyses (e.g. laser surface, DNA, isotopic, etc.) (Berman, 2008)

  1. Unsuitability for average users: the authentication of product consistency with production regulations is carried out by experienced external bodies and analyses may require laboratory testing or special equipment (Berman, 2008)

  2. Analysis limited to samples: these measures can generally verify the authenticity of only a limited subset of items (Pustjens et al., 2016)

  3. No protection against downstream counterfeiting: these measures do not prevent counterfeiting after a product is introduced on the market.

Upstream and downstream counterfeitingProcess-related measures: track-and-trace systemsMeasures aimed at providing detailed information on product provenance and respect of safety/quality requirements, thus guaranteeing authenticity (Biswas et al., 2017). They generally use common smart labels (e.g. QR codes and barcodes) as well as high-tech labelling (e.g. NFC and RFID tags) that allow users to easily access product-related information via their smartphones (Creydt and Fischer, 2019)

  1. Tags cloning: smart labels commonly used by these systems can be subject to cloning and reuse on counterfeit products (Lo et al., 2019)

  2. Manipulation of product-related information: these systems are vulnerable to information manipulation after data entry because data is stored on centralized servers that allow modifications (Biswas et al., 2017)

  3. Poor quality of the input data: track-and-trace systems can be fed with information that does not reflect reality if no specific activities and controls are carried out to verify data-entry quality

Note(s): *With the exception of those seals that need regulatory approval and can be issued only after on-field audits (e.g. “PDO” marks, “DOCG” wine labels), which provide assurances against upstream counterfeiting

[ViewLarge]
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal