Two recent cases in Almaty show Kazakhstan’s more active enforcement against counterfeit goods. The first case concerned Lacoste, which brought a claim against an individual entrepreneur for the unlawful use of a sign similar to the famous French brand’s trademark. The second case involved counterfeit Nesquik breakfast cereals: almost two thousand packages of fake products worth more than 3 million tenge were found in retail outlets in Almaty.
In the Lacoste case, the Specialised Interdistrict Economic Court of Almaty upheld the rights holder’s claim against the entrepreneur. According to the case materials, the entrepreneur sold and stored goods bearing markings confusingly similar to the Lacoste trademark. The infringement was confirmed by a test purchase, purchase documents and an expert examination of the goods. The court found unlawful use of the brand and awarded compensation of 100 MCI, equal to 393,200 tenge. The entrepreneur was also ordered to reimburse the cost of the test purchase and pay the state duty.
The second case concerned counterfeit Nesquik cereals discovered in retail outlets in Almaty. Representatives of the rights holder reported the unlawful use of the well-known trademark, after which the Department of Justice, together with cyber police, carried out an unscheduled inspection. As a result, 1,930 packages of counterfeit products were seized. Following a court decision, the entire batch was sent for destruction, and the entrepreneur was held administratively liable and fined.
These two stories are important for the market because they demonstrate different responses to brand infringement. In the Lacoste case, the rights holder obtained court-awarded compensation for the unlawful use of a similar sign. In the Nesquik case, the key response was administrative: inspection, seizure of goods, a fine and destruction of counterfeit products. Taken together, the cases show that enforcement against counterfeits may take place both through court proceedings and through actions by public authorities.
For entrepreneurs, these cases are a clear warning that selling or even storing goods bearing another party’s brand or a similar sign may result in financial liability, seizure of products and their destruction. For brand owners, they confirm the importance of regular market monitoring, documenting infringements, conducting test purchases and contacting competent authorities in time. For consumers, such enforcement also matters because counterfeit goods may mislead buyers about the origin, quality and safety of products.