DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

i.To trace counterfeits at entry points, Inland Container Depots (ICDs), shops, and godowns;
ii.To collect and analyze data from the field and compile monthly, quarterly, and annual
reports;

iii.To liaise with the Anti-Counterfeit Enforcement section on legal matters;

iv.To conduct raids in godowns, retail shops, and private premises suspected of harboring
counterfeits;

v.To inspect premises or vehicles and any person suspected of harboring or manufacturing
counterfeits;

vi.To carry out the market survey with the aim of identifying counterfeit goods;

vii.To seize, detain, remove, and store any suspected counterfeit goods in a designated place;

viii.To take samples for laboratory testing; and

ix.To perform any other related duties as may be assigned by the supervisor.

How it started
For many years Tanzania's economy was centrally planned, until mid 1980s, during which, the
country embarked on a programme of trade liberalization, which was followed by the policy of
privatizing state owned enterprises from 1992. Privatization policy supported private ownership
and freer markets. In the late 1990s the Government began concerted efforts to create a viable
regulatory framework in the country. These efforts culminated into the enactment of the Fair
Competition Act of 2003.
 Overview of FCC Mandate
The FCC makes necessary interventions to ensure that competition is allowed to regulate the
competitive market. It also intervenes to prevents significant market dominance, price fixing
and extortion of monopoly rent to the detriment of the consumer, market instability.

Through the powers conferred upon it by the FCA, the FCC deals with all issues of anti-
competitive conduct, abuse of dominance and has provision for curtailing mergers and
acquisitions if outcome is likely to create dominance in the market or lead to uncompetitive
behavior. It also carries the consumer protection regime administered by a department at arms
length with the Commission. The adjudications of consumer related cases is done in the normal
courts.

The FCC is given powers to gather information, to conduct investigations and to impose
sanctions for violations of the law.

In addition to implementing the FCA, FCC is also charged with the responsibility of enforcing the
Merchandise Marks Act of 1963, which is the legal instrument for fighting counterfeits.

The competition law co-exists with the sector specific regulatory framework. The regulatory
framework is governed by the following Acts;

1. The Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority Act, 2001 (EWURA Act);
2. The Surface and Marine Transport Regulatory Act, 2001 (SUMATRA Act);
3. Tanzania Civil Aviation Regulatory Authority Act, 2003 (TCAA Act);
4. The Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority Act, 2003 (TCRA Act).

Our Vision
Efficient Market and Consumer Welfare for Shared Prosperity.

Our Mission

To promote Competition and Protect Consumers by Preventing Anticompetitive and Deceptive

Business Conducts to Ensure Inclusive Economic Growth.

Our Core Values

Objectivity, Professionalism, Transparency, Integrity and Consistency.
According to the Fair Competition Act, the FCC will carry out the following functions in line
with efforts to fulfill its objectives:

1. Administer the Fair Competition Act and develop and promote policies for enhancing
competition and consumer welfare;
2. Control, manage and efficiently perform the functions of the Commission under the Act;
3. Promote and enforce compliance with the Act;
4. Promote public knowledge, awareness and understanding of the obligations, rights and
remedies under the Act and the duties, functions and activities of the Commission;
5. Make available to consumers information and guidelines relating to the obligations of persons
under the Act and the rights and remedies available to consumers under the Act;
6. Carry out inquiries studies and research into matters relating to competition and the Protection
of the interests of consumers;
7. Study government policies, procedures and programs, legislations and proposals for legislation
so as to assess their effects on competition and consumer welfare and publicise the results of
such studies;
8. Investigate impediments to competition, including entry into and exit from markets, in the
economy as a whole or in particular sectors and publicise the results of such investigations;
9. Investigate policies, procedures and programs of regulatory authorities so as to assess their
effects on competition and consumer welfare and publicise the results of such studies;
10. Participate in deliberations and proceedings of the government, government commissions,
regulatory authorities and other bodies in relation to competition and consumer welfare;
11. Make representations to government, government commissions, regulatory authorities and
other bodies on matters related to competition and consumer welfare;
12. Consult with consumer bodies, regulatory authorities, business organizations and other
interested persons;
13. Consult with the competition authorities of other countries;
14. Represent Tanzania at international forum concerned with matters relating to competition or
the interests of consumers.

Functions under Merchandise Marks Act,1963 (MMA)

1. To represent the interests of consumers by making submissions to, providing views and
information to and consulting with the Commission, regulatory authorities and government
ministries;
2. To receive and disseminate information and views on matters of interest to consumers;
3. To establish regional and sector consumer committees and consult with them;
4. To consult with industry, government and other consumer groups on matters of interest to
consumers.

Our Services

5. Clearance of Merger Applications

6. Clearance of Exemption for Agreements
7. Registration of Standard Form Consumer Contracts
8. Review and Opine on Agreements
9. Resolving Competition disputes
 10. Handling of Consumer complaints
11. Resolving Anti counterfeit disputes
12. Conducting Competition Market Research studies
13. Product Recall Services
14. Conducting legislative reviews

Counterfeit is deceit. It is something that has been forged, copied or imitated without the
perpetrator’s having the right to do so, for the purpose of extracting money from credulous or
consenting consumers. The term ‘counterfeiting’ is generally used in relation to the copying of
trademarks (covering words, pictures and symbols), the infringements of patents (protecting
inventions), licensing and copyright (relating to software, literary, musical and artistic works), as
well as the faking of industrial designs, currency, consumer goods, substances, even plants and
works of art but also packaging and labelling. Altogether these categories form the notion of
intellectual property, as defined by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation).

5. The Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) defines counterfeiting as “a deliberate attempt to

deceive consumers by copying and marketing goods bearing well known trade marks, generally
together with packaging and product configuration, so that they look like they are made by a
reputable manufacturer when they are, in fact, inferior copies”. However, the spread of digital
technologies has not only made copying faster and cheaper but also radically improved its
quality, with the result that modern imitations are more and more difficult to distinguish from
the genuine articles.

6. The likelihood for someone to be confronted with the fake is very high. It is estimated
that counterfeiting represents up to 9% of world trade and is omnipresent throughout
industries and countries. Although this offence is not new – faking valuables has been known
from ancient times – the situation over the past twenty or thirty years has changed radically.
Technological advances and the increasing delocalisation of manufacturing into poorer
countries with low labour cost but often inadequate protection for intellectual property since
the 1970s have transformed once marginal counterfeiting activities into well organised, highly
productive and profitable ‘parallel’ businesses.

7. At the same time, the growing popularity and rocketing value of brands enable – through
smart marketing – to convert a rather simple and cheaply produced designer item into an
expensive object of desire. The value-added by a brand-name is nowadays so significant that it
becomes a golden opportunity for imitators to exploit consumers’ wishes without having to pay
a high price. Moreover, with the advent of the ‘knowledge economy’, intellectual property is
becoming a major company asset.

8. Companies thus end up competing not only with visible rivals but also have to face unfair
competition from ‘unofficial’ contenders. They gradually lose sales, market share, revenue and,
to a certain degree, money spent in research and product development; their brand risks losing
value (by being seen as less exclusive or of poor quality due to confusion with counterfeit
copies) and even company reputation may suffer. In addition, companies may have to bear the
cost of anti-counterfeiting measures or legal liability. Small businesses are particularly
vulnerable.

9. State interests are hurt through the loss of job opportunities and tax revenue, lower GDP
and investment. There is also increasing evidence that organized crime and terrorists have
become involved in the production and distribution of counterfeit goods, which provides them
with funds for their illicit activities and undermines state authority.

10. While the general public rightly views trade in drugs or human trafficking with great
concern, few would feel as strongly about counterfeiting. Since the risks that imitation goods
pose to health and well-being of the consumer are generally underestimated - and the
acquisition of fake products is still too often seen as ‘better value for money’ - counterfeiters
can take advantage of a growing demand for the counterfeit in relative safety.
 WHAT CAN WE DO AGAINST COUNTERFEITING?

30. The importance of intellectual property protection is now widely recognised. Every
country needs a well developed and functioning mechanism to make best use of its human
capital for enhanced economic and social well-being. At international level, intellectual
property protection helps to preserve fair competition among traders in the global marketplace
and self-evidently seeks to eliminate illegal practices such as counterfeiting and piracy. Because
the effects of counterfeiting are felt throughout society, responses to the problem should come
from all levels: international organisations and business associations, legislators, industries,
companies, enforcement agencies, regional authorities and consumers.

3.1 International co-operation structures

31. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) unites 179[11] of the world’s
countries around the common task of protecting the rights of owners of intellectual property in
their countries and worldwide. Its origins go back to 19 th century, when the first international
treaty on the matter – the 1883 Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial
Property (such as inventions, trademarks, industrial designs) – was signed by fourteen states. In
1886, the notion of ‘copyright’ was established with the Berne Convention for the protection of
Literary and Artistic Works. The WIPO, as we know it today, is a specialised agency of the
United Nations and administers a total of 23 treaties. Against the background of its expanding
role in the management of world trade, WIPO in 1996 started formal co-operation with the
World Trade Organisation.

32. WIPO’s work in promoting the development and application of internationally agreed
norms and standards to protect intellectual property relies on its member states’ success in
adopting and enforcing legal provisions. National customs are no doubt an essential element of
these efforts in facilitating the flow of licit goods but filtering out illegal cargos. The World
Customs Organisation (WCO) is co-ordinating the work of 161[12] national customs
administrations and tries to build a global multilateral security chain for international trade.
Good co-operation between national authorities with and through bodies such as WIPO, WTO,
WCO, WHO (World Health Organisation) and Interpol/Europol is vital for capacity building and
increased integrity.

33. These and other international organisations make a valuable contribution to tackling
counterfeiting. They should also build up databases on injuries, diseases and deaths related to
counterfeit goods. The WHO has a database on counterfeit drugs but could also usefully gather
information on other counterfeits with adverse effects on health. Steps to address this
information deficit could also be taken by national health organisations and government
agencies.

34. At the European level, the EU took the first measures to reinforce the protection of the
Single Market against the influx of counterfeit goods in 1994, via its Regulation 3295/94. It was
meant to supplement WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs). The Regulation was subsequently amended. The interested parties were consulted in
1998 on the basis of a ‘Green Paper’ on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the Single
Market, and an action plan setting out priorities and initiatives followed in 2000. This
notwithstanding, there has been a steady escalation in intellectual property offences, especially
over 1998-2001 period.

35. In January 2003, the European Commission published a new proposal for a Council
Regulation “concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual
property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such
rights”. It was followed by a Directive laying down “measures and procedures to ensure the
enforcement of intellectual property rights”. The latter is designed to curb the flow of
counterfeit goods within the EU, whereas the former is meant to improve the efficiency of
customs action for seizing counterfeits at the EU’s external borders. These acts would replace
the existing Regulation 3295/94.

36. The adoption by the European Parliament, in June 2003, of a written Declaration on the
fight against piracy and counterfeiting in the enlarged EU, signed by 231 Members of European
Parliament (MEPs), came shortly before the EU Council of Ministers’ adoption in July 2003 of
the above-mentioned Regulation, which will enter into force in July 2004. These moves are
indeed very welcome steps, coming so quickly after the Commission’s initiatives. This allows
hoping for a speedy progress also on the legislative process regarding the proposed Directive.

37. The new Regulation, amongst other things,

(a) extends intellectual property rights protection to new domains (covering e.g. plant varieties,
geographical indications and designations of origin),

(b) seeks to improve information exchange between customs and the right holders as regards
suspect consignments,

(c) streamlines customs verifications procedures,

(d) strengthens the protection of SME right holders,

(e) tries to tighten control of small-scale trafficking and

(f) authorises customs authorities to destroy suspected goods under certain conditions without
court permission.

It is against this background that the Rapporteur recalls the idea that an alternative use could
be found for some of the seized counterfeit goods, such as clothing and shoes, in forwarding
them to orphanages and international humanitarian organizations instead of systematically
destroying them, as is the current practice. The Rapporteur noted that members of the
Economic Affairs Committee marked their agreement in principle to the exceptional and
restricted use for such purposes of counterfeit clothing and shoes.

38. The proposed Directive puts forward a series of practical measures aimed at
overcoming the existing disparities between national systems in enforcing intellectual property
rights – with the goal of harmonising the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions in
EU member states. Some experts believe that the draft Directive needs to be improved so as to
clarify provisions for implementation and as regards the definition of ‘infringements with
severe effects’. They also say it should better address the issue of unfair commercial practices
(such as look-alikes) and the need to foresee out-of-court settlements, as well as to extend the
‘presumption of authorship’ also to legal persons. In terms of penalties for infringements, the
Directive does not go as far as the United States Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act
of 1996 whichpermits US law enforcement officials to seize not only the counterfeit goods but
also the property, equipment and storage facilities associated with the criminal enterprise.

3.2 Companies’ and industries’ role

39. While waiting for stronger laws and enforcement mechanisms at EU level, companies
should continue to take measures to better protect their products. These include:

(a) more active information sharing among industry players, public authorities, enforcement
agencies, law making bodies and consumer associations;

(b) research on, and implementation of, technical anti-counterfeiting solutions (for instance,
optical and electronic security devices, micro-engravings, watermarks, holograms and ‘smart
packaging’);

(c) improved management systems to prevent ‘strategic information leaks’ and ‘back-door
shipping’ (tougher rules may be needed with regard to licensed partners and company staff
need to be coached on confidentiality principles and data protection); the same holds for
detecting and reporting suspicious goods (e.g. via customer hotlines), means to monitor the
flow of goods on the market, and methods to pursue offenders.

40. The industries concerned must also become more active in combating piracy and
counterfeiting. They could bolster the general regulatory framework by developing codes of
conduct and guidelines for the circles directly affected by the problem. Industry associations
should set up databases on cases of counterfeit and the harm they cause, which would permit
them to communicate better to the public about direct damages due to counterfeiting.

3.3 Beyond the EU

41. Non-EU states should work to align their legislation and enforcement mechanisms not
only with international legal standards but also with EU legislation. This is already the case for
the ten candidate countries set to join the EU in 2004 under the Europe Agreements concluded
in 1990s; for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the European Economic Area
Agreement that entered into force on 1 January 1994; and for Switzerland via the Bilateral I
Agreement concluded between that country and the EU.

3.4 Empowering local authorities

42. Local authorities should also be concerned about counterfeiting. While counterfeiting
has for long been viewed as a low priority type of crime, new evidence of the direct harm it
causes and the wider economic implications it has lead to a gradually changing general public’s
perception of the problem. Local communities across Europe lose billions in local taxes due to
counterfeiting. Many small local enterprises can be forced out of business by counterfeit
competition and scores of employees would be laid off as a result.

43. Involving local actors in national anti-counterfeiting efforts therefore makes sense and
should be encouraged. Local authorities could contribute in the organisation of information
campaigns against counterfeiting, assist in investigations of reported cases, and monitor local
markets in co-operation with local chambers of commerce and consumer associations. If the
United States has one of the lowest rates of counterfeiting in its domestic market, it is largely
due to its steep penalties and the proven ability of state (regional) and local authorities to
pursue counterfeiters in support of nation-wide action by federal authorities.

3.5 Educating the consumer

44. The quickest way to halt any market is to curb the demand that created that market.
Yet many people do not see anything wrong with buying counterfeit goods. It is therefore
important to alert consumers as to the consequences and possible dangers of buying
counterfeit goods. Most buyers are presumably unaware that acquiring fake products may
amount to lost jobs and tax revenue, perhaps even in their region, that they may be
inadvertently supporting terrorist and organized crime organizations, and that their health,
safety and well-being could be at serious risk.

45. Raising awareness of consumers can be done effectively through the dissemination of
knowledge and information. Advertisements alerting the public to all the dangers of
counterfeiting can be broadcast on the media and put into posters in shopping areas and
magazine pages. Good advertising has powerful effects on people and a properly waged
campaign can bring about an increased knowledge and prompt the desired action on the
problem within the community.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

46. Counterfeiting is nothing new in Europe. What is new, however, is the growing scope
and diversity of this phenomenon, which is creating substantial uncontrolled parallel markets in
many product categories. The regular market is thereby negatively affected, competition
distorted, consumer confidence eroded and with it sales. Jobs are lost, investments are not
made, and state revenue is diminished, while risks to public health and the overall well-being of
consumers rise. The European Union, in line with its commitments to various WIPO and WTO
treaties, in 2003 has presented audacious draft legislation – a Community Regulation has been
adopted and a new Directive proposed – even though it may be some time before any practical
impact will be felt, not least due to the current EU enlargement process. Greater harmonisation
and tightening of anti-counterfeiting laws and measures should be sought throughout the
continent, so that no ‘weak links’ remain.

Some of the most dangerous counterfeit products involve automotive parts, electronics, safety
equipment, prescription drugs, and cosmetics due to the potential threats they present to
public safety and public health:
 Counterfeit airbags and their components can cause severe malfunctions ranging from non-
deployment, under inflation, over inflation to explosion of metal shrapnel during
deployment in a crash.
 Counterfeit lithium-ion laptop batteries pose significant risk of extreme heat, self-igniting,
and exploding.
 Counterfeit helmets and baby carriers can break.
 Counterfeit prescription drugs may not contain the active ingredient or could lead to
accidental overdose.
 Counterfeit cosmetics can cause severe skin reactions.

These counterfeit goods usually bear the trademark of a legitimate and trusted brand, but they
were produced by another party and are not made to the specifications of the original
manufacturer. They're often produced illegally and sold at a profit to fund other criminal
activities. This makes the production and trafficking of counterfeit goods a transnational crime,
commonly linked to transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). As such, related commercial
fraud violations are also investigated by HSI’s Border Enforcement Security Task Forces (BESTs).

Counterfeiting is a pervasive problem that poses significant challenges to businesses and

consumers alike. The increase of counterfeit products not only leads to economic losses but
also jeopardizes consumer safety and damages brand reputation. To combat this growing
menace, various anti-counterfeiting solutions have emerged. In this article, we will explore
some of the best anti-counterfeiting solutions currently available and evaluate their
effectiveness in protecting authenticity.

1. Unique Identification Technologies

Unique identification technologies provide a means to differentiate genuine products from
counterfeits by incorporating distinctive elements into the product or its packaging. These
technologies are categorized into logical security, such as unique IDs, and physical security,
such as holograms and others. Logical security on a product can be copied, as the protection
method is only based on storage of the IDs in a data base. Physical security on the product itself
is harder to copy, however in contrast to logical security there is (for most elements) no
uniqueness to it.

Common technologies include:

Holographic Security Patterns: Holographic security patterns offer visual authentication effects
that are difficult to replicate. They often contain overt, covert, and forensic security features,
making them highly reliable anti-counterfeiting tools. However, it is important to note that only
holograms with special (patented) security element are truly secure. Standard embossed
holograms, which are readily available on the market, are typically intended solely for
marketing purposes, as they can be copied.

QR codes and Barcodes: QR codes and barcodes enable consumers to verify product
authenticity by scanning them, using smartphones or dedicated apps. Authentication data can
be securely stored and retrieved from a centralized database or blockchain, providing real-time
validation. Without a connection to a database, QR codes are not secure, as they can be
copied.

RFID and NFC Tags: Radio-frequency identification (RFID) and near-field communication (NFC)
tags allow for secure and automated product tracking and consumer authentication throughout
the supply chain. These technologies offer real-time insights into product movement, ensuring
authenticity from manufacturing to point of sale. However, one has to be aware that these
technologies are:

 More cost-intensive
 Only NFCs can be read by smartphones; RFIDs cannot
  NFCs cannot be used for bulk reading in logistics.
 There are tags with and without copy protection. The fact that a tag is shielded from
further modifications or the writing process does not mean it can't be copied.

2. Tamper-Evident Packaging

Tamper-evident packaging solutions provide visible indications of tampering or unauthorised

access to a product. They instill confidence in consumers by assuring them that the product has
not been compromised. Some notable examples include:

Security Seals: Tamper-evident seals, often with unique identification features, can be applied
to packaging or containers to ensure integrity. These seals are specifically engineered to break
or leave visible marks upon removal, thereby creating irreversible marks that prevent re-closing
without noticing the tamper attempt.

Shrink Wrapping: Heat-shrink film tightly wraps around a product, making it evident if the
package has been opened or altered. This cost-effective solution is commonly used for
protecting various consumer goods. Please be aware that if they are not combined with other
secure anti-counterfeit technologies, they can be copied.

3. Track and Trace Systems

Track and trace systems leverage serialisation and authentication technologies to monitor the
movement of products across the supply chain. These systems enable stakeholders to identify
and track individual items from production to the point of sale. Key solutions in this category
include:

Serialisation Codes: Unique serial numbers or codes are assigned to each product or packaging
unit, allowing for traceability and verification throughout the supply chain. Manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers can authenticate products using these codes. The security in these
systems – most of the time – comes from a very tight tracking that would detect when a copied
code is suddenly ‘injected’ into the supply chain at a position where it should not be (as
everything is tracked).

Blockchain Technology: Blockchain offers an immutable and transparent ledger that can record
product information and transactional data. By storing data in a decentralized manner, it
enhances trust and enables easy verification of product provenance. The obstacle at hand is the
requirement for a distinct identification feature on the real product to identify the digital twin
in the blockchain. The complete blockchain is worthless if the ID or scanning process can be
fooled with a copy.

4. Hidden Technologies

Hidden technologies cannot be identified with the naked eye or authenticated by a smartphone
without the use of additional tools. These anti-counterfeiting technologies can only be
authenticated by experts using a special device, like a UV spotlight.

Notable examples include:

Invisible Ink and UV Markings: Invisible inks and ultraviolet (UV) markings are applied to
products or packaging. These features are invisible to the naked eye but become visible under
specific lighting or with the use of UV detectors, allowing for easy authentication.

Microtaggants: Microtaggants are microscopic particles (DNA taggants, rare earths) or UV

fibers embedded in products, each with a unique signature. These can be authenticated using
advanced laboratory equipment, enabling precise verification of product authenticity.
5. Forensic Technologies

Forensic technologies employ specialised features that can only be detected using advanced
laboratory equipment or expertise. These solutions provide an additional layer of security
against counterfeits. For example, one would employ a chemical analysis to prove authenticity.

What should be the basics of a good anti-counterfeiting technology?

Fact is that there is a world of different anti-counterfeiting solutions on the market and we
understand that it can feel a bit overwhelming to choose the right one.
We would like to support your decision-making by giving some tips on what to look out for and
how a SCRIBOS solution fulfills these requirements:

1. The best anti-counterfeiting solution is the one that cannot be copied by a

counterfeiter
Our SCRIBOS solutions are developed, patented and produced in-house and therefore
cannot be copied by any counterfeiter. They feature a multi-level security combination
of overt, covert, and forensic elements to provide multiple layers of protection to your
products. All of our levels are serialised and repeat the unique ID (or a part of it) in some
form. We have not found a successful copy attempt of our solutions in the 20 years we
have been in business.
It is always best to choose an anti-counterfeiting technology that can only be produced
and provided by one supplier. If you can buy from several providers, you run the risk
that the counterfeiter is also purchasing from these sources.

2. The best anti-counterfeiting solution is one that involves the end customer
Our solutions give you the powerful ability to directly involve your customers. To
authenticate their product, the customer only has to open his camera on his
smartphone, scan the label/marking and is then guided through a one-click
authentication process, which is accessible without any app. By scanning, your
customers help you find counterfeit hot spots and basically become an army of
detectives for your company. Furthermore, digital marketing measures can be
 integrated after the scanning process, f. ex. you can link to your company website and
social media platforms, offer discounts or ask for customer feedback.
As a result, by involving your end customer, you can unlock the full potential of your
anti-counterfeiting solution.

3. The best anti-counterfeiting solution gives you track and trace abilities
Our solutions can all be connected to our digital platform SCRIBOS 360. Our platform not
only helps you detect counterfeit hot spots or grey market activities. It also gives you
valuable insights into your market and helps you set up digital marketing campaigns.
Each scan is monitored, thereby enabling you to monitor your products and determine
their location – globally.

So which solution is the best for me?

As the battle against counterfeiting intensifies, businesses must employ robust anti-
counterfeiting solutions to protect their brands and consumers. By leveraging unique
identification technologies, tamper-evident packaging, track and trace systems, and hidden
technologies, organizations can significantly reduce the risk of counterfeit products entering the
market. However, it is important to adopt a multi-layered approach tailored to the specific
needs of each industry and product. Ultimately, investing in an anti-counterfeiting solution that
in some way involves your customers has been proven to be the most effective way to
safeguard the authenticity of your products and maintain trust in the marketplace.
Furthermore, it is essential to have a powerful cloud/IT system in place that actually gives you
the ability to identify hot spots in real time and take targeted action. The best anti-
counterfeiting solution therefore always includes a security feature that is combined with a
Cloud/IT system.

We would be delighted to provide assistance to you in identifying the most suitable anti-
counterfeiting solution for your requirements, if desired, incorporating powerful extras such
as consumer loyalty programs and track & trace capabilities.