Authored By: Lesego Solane Yvonne Mokobi
Eduvos
Abstract
Intellectual Property (IP) crime has gone through a profound transformation from localised commercial disputes to more complex, transatlantic operations organised by international cartels. This article critically evaluates the seamless integration between the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and INTERPOL in countering these legal standards (specifically the TRIPS Agreement and WIPO administrated treaties with INTERPOL’s enforcement mechanisms). This research explores the recurring and elusive threat of digital piracy and the mass growth of counterfeit physical goods.
This article evaluates the effectiveness of joint initiatives such as the (IIPICIC) International Intellectual Property Crime Investigators College and (ACE) the WIPO’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement, in bridging the gap between frontline policing and legislative policy in Geneva while also arguing that while the WIPO-INTERPOLE alliance has enhanced global cooperation and technical capacity. The legal race against technology-driven crime needs a more dynamic multi-lateral approach to ensure public safety and global economic stability.
Keywords
• Intellectual Property (IP)
• World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
• INTERPOL
• TRIPS Agreement
Introduction
The Dualistic Nature of Intellectual Property Enforcement In the modern-day global economy, the ultimate value of intangible assets often surpasses physical capital, however the new shift towards an innovation-led economy has created a shadow industry. IPC (Intellectual Property Crime) is no longer a victimless commercial infringement due to its compromising trademark counterfeits and copyright piracy, as indicated by the WCO Illicit Trade Report 2023, these activities have now been linked to transnational organised crime which provides low-risk, high-reward funding for terrorism, drug smuggling and human trafficking.
The challenge of IP enforcement is double-edged because it requires a “Geneva” approach which is the creation of high-level norms, treaties and harmonized legal definitions, where as the “Frontline” approach is the physical and digital pursuit of criminals across borders. This article touches on the effectiveness of the partnership between WIPO (the UN’s specialised agency for IP policy) and INTERPOL (the world’s largest international police organisation), this will be done through examining the
• Legal framework
• Judicial interpretations & Case Law
• Critical Analysis
• Suggestions
To determine whether the current international architecture is sufficient to dismantle these illicit networks.
The Legal Framework:
Constructing the “Geneva” Architecture
The international legal architecture for IP enforcement is not a single monolith but a layered system of treaties and agreements that mandate state action.
The TRIPS Mandate and Criminality
The TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement changed everything by turning those suggestions into strict requirements. The real “teeth” of the agreement are found in Article 61. For the first time, it told countries that they couldn’t just treat trademark fakes or pirated movies as private civil matters anymore they had to make them crimes.
By mandating that member states provide criminal trials and actual penalties (like jail time or heavy fines) for big-time counterfeiting and piracy, TRIPS moved IP theft out of the realm of “business disputes” and into the world of serious criminal law. It was the moment the world agreed that protecting ideas was vital enough to justify the power of the state.
This “commercial scale” requirement is the bedrock of the WIPO-INTERPOL partnership. It shifts the burden from civil litigation between private parties to the realm of public law enforcement. However, the lack of a precise definition of “commercial scale” in the original text created a legal vacuum that WIPO’s Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) has worked to fill by promoting best practices and legislative models.
WIPO’s Normative Influence
WIPO’s role, as outlined in the WIPO Lex database and various publication materials (such as WIPO Publication No. 791), is to provide the legislative “blueprint.” Through the Paris Convention for industrial property and the Berne Convention for literary and artistic works, WIPO ensures the principle of “National Treatment.” This principle is vital for INTERPOL’s work; it ensures that a South African investigator can pursue a criminal infringing on a French patent with the same legal vigor as if the patent were domestic.
The UNTOC and Transnational Policing
The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) provides the necessary “teeth” for INTERPOL’s operations. Since IP crime is often transnational, the UNTOC facilitates
• mutual legal assistance
• extradition
• joint investigations
The operationalization of the WIPO-INTERPOL partnership relies heavily on the definitions of “organized criminal groups” found within this Convention to justify the use of advanced investigative techniques like wiretapping and undercover operations.
The Operational Frontlines
INTERPOL’s Engine
While WIPO drafts the law, INTERPOL executes it. Their cooperation is formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding that emphasizes mutual expertise seeking.
The International IP Crime Investigators College (IIPCIC) One of the most successful operational outputs is the IIPCIC, a joint initiative providing specialized training to law enforcement, customs, and regulatory agencies. As highlighted in the INTERPOL Global Crime Trend Summary Report, the sophistication of IP criminals often outpaces the technical knowledge of generalist police officers. The IIPCIC bridges this gap by offering “train-the-trainer” programs that cascade specialized knowledge into national police academies, such as those in Tanzania and South Africa.
Supply Chain Security and the WCO
The partnership extends to the World Customs Organization (WCO). The Illicit Trade Report 2023 emphasizes that the “frontline” is often a shipping port or a postal hub. By integrating WIPO’s legal data with INTERPOL’s “Purple Notices” (which share information on criminal methods), customs officers are better equipped to identify “high-risk” shipments, particularly in porous regions like West Africa, which serves as a transit hub between Europe and the Americas.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
The transition from a police raid to a criminal conviction depends on how the judiciary interprets international norms.
The United Kingdom and EU Perspectives
In the United Kingdom, cases like In re J (A Child) (FC) [2003] UKHL 27 demonstrate the judiciary’s approach to interpreting statutes in a way that respects international obligations while maintaining domestic procedural fairness. In the context of IP, European courts have increasingly utilized the Eurojust Case Law Report to harmonize sentencing.
A critical judicial trend is the shift from “quantity” to “impact” when defining commercial scale. In various EU jurisdictions, courts have ruled that hosting a single server that facilitates thousands of illegal downloads constitutes “commercial scale,” even if the defendant did not personally profit, due to the massive economic prejudice caused to the right-holder. This is seen in cases such as the Lithuania Case No. 2K-173/2013 involving software piracy.
The South African Context and Developing Nations
In South Africa, judges are performing a tough balancing act. They must weigh the reality of informal markets, where many people make a living, against the need to stop dangerous illegal trade. The scales have tipped toward harsher punishments because of one major factor: public health. When it comes to counterfeit medicines, the courts aren’t just protecting a brand’s profits; they are protecting human lives. A fake pill isn’t just a “knock-off” it’s a potential death sentence.
This local shift aligns perfectly with INTERPOL’s “Project Health.” Together, they are rebranding IP crime. It’s no longer viewed as a “victimless” white-collar offense, but as a serious threat to survival that justifies the full weight of criminal law.
Critical Analysis
The Globalization of Law Enforcement
The Paun (2012) study on the Globalization of Law Enforcement provides a critical lens through which to view this partnership.
The Public-Private Paradox
One of the most significant features of the WIPO-INTERPOL “war” is its heavy reliance on transnational public-private partnerships (PPPs). Because right-holders (large corporations) possess the most data on infringements, they often fund or drive the investigations. This raises questions about the “privatization” of criminal law. However, the Duke University Law School research suggests that because IP crime undermines the entire economic system and consumer safety, its enforcement is a public necessity that requires private sector intelligence to be effective.
The Digital “Safe Haven” Problem
The borderless nature of the internet remains the greatest hurdle. While WIPO has successfully promoted the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) to protect digital works, INTERPOL’s ability to act is often hamstrung by “bulletproof hosting” in jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate. The “whack-a-mole” effect, where shutting down one pirate site leads to the immediate rise of several others suggests that the legal framework is often reactive rather than proactive.
Suggestions for Reform
To evolve the WIPO-INTERPOL alliance, the following strategic shifts are recommended based on existing reports:
1. Harmonized “Commercial Scale” Definition: WIPO should lead a diplomatic conference to create a binding, unified definition of “commercial scale” that includes “dissemination without profit” to address modern digital piracy.
2. Specialized IP Units: As suggested by INTERPOL, member states must invest in dedicated investigation units that bridge the gap between cybercrime and traditional counterfeit goods.
3. Enhanced Judicial Training: WIPO’s Judicial Institute should expand its work with INTERPOL to ensure that judges in developing nations understand the link between a “small-time” counterfeit seller and broader organized crime networks.
4. Leveraging New Technologies: Utilizing tools like the WCO’s Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) to visualize data and identify trafficking routes in real-time.
Conclusion
The “war” on global IP crime is a conflict fought on two fronts: the hallowed halls of Geneva and the gritty frontlines of global trade. The partnership between WIPO and INTERPOL has succeeded in creating a common language for enforcement and elevating the technical capacity of police forces worldwide.
The success of this alliance will depend on its ability to move beyond traditional policing and embrace a more holistic, technology-driven approach. Protecting the products of human ingenuity is not just about protecting profits; it is about preserving the integrity of global markets and ensuring the safety of consumers. The frontlines are moving, and the law must move with them.
Word Bank
• Normative Standards: The legal benchmarks set by WIPO (Geneva).
• Commercial Scale: The threshold for criminal liability under TRIPS Art 61
• Whack-a-mole: The rapid emergence of new pirate sites after shutdowns.
• IIPCIC: The WIPO-INTERPOL training institute.
• Purple Notice: INTERPOL alert for criminal modus operandi.
• TOC: Transnational Organized Crime.
• ACE: Advisory Committee on Enforcement
• WCO: World Customs Organization
• WCT: WIPO Copyright Treaty
• UNTOC: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
OSCOLA Referencing
Treaties and International Instruments
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010) (17 July 1998) 2187 UNTS 3.
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (adopted 15 November 2000, entered into force 29 September 2003) 2225 UNTS 209 (UNTOC).
Case Law
• In re J (A Child) (FC) [2003] UKHL 27 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/john-1.htm accessed 12 January 2026.
Reports and Institutional Documents
• EUIPO and Europol, Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment 2022 (Publications Office of the European Union 2022) https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/reports/2022_IP_ Crime_Threat_Assessment/IP_Crime_Threat_Assessment_2022_FullR_en.pdf accessed 12 January 2026.
• Eurojust, Case Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union on Intellectual Property Crime (Eurojust 2022) https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/assets/ipc-case-law.pdf accessed 12 January 2026.
• INTERPOL, Global Crime Trend Summary Report 2024 (INTERPOL 2024).
• INTERPOL and WIPO, Joint Report on IP Crime Enforcement (WIPO/INTERPOL 2021).
• UNODC, World Drug Report 2025 (United Nations publication 2025) https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2025.html accessed 12 January 2026.
• WCO, Illicit Trade Report 2023 (World Customs Organization 2023) https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/enforcement-and compliance/activities-and-programmes/illicit-trade-report/itr_2023_en.pdf?db=web accessed 12 January 2026.
• WIPO, Advisory Committee on Enforcement: Sixteenth Session (WIPO/ACE/16/19, 2024) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/enforcement/en/wipo_ace_16/wipo_ace_16_19.pd f accessed 12 January 2026.
• WIPO, Investigating and Prosecuting IP Crime (WIPO Publication No 791, 2018) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_791_2018.pdf accessed 12 January 2026.
• WIPO, ‘Training on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’ (WIPO/IPR/PNH/11) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/aspac/en/wipo_ipr_pnh_11/wipo_ipr_pnh_11_ref_ t6.pdf accessed 12 January 2026.
Journal Articles and Papers
• Nicolae Paun and others, ‘Globalization of Law Enforcement – A Study of Transnational Public-Private Partnerships Against Intellectual Property Crimes’ (2012) 17(1) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279401087_Globalization_of_Law_Enforce ment_-_A_Study_of_Transnational_Public
Private_Partnerships_Against_Intellectual_Property_Crimes accessed 12 January 2026.
Websites and Online Resources
• Duke University School of Law, ‘Intellectual Property Law Research’ https://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/lib/intprop.pdf accessed 12 January 2026.
• INTERPOL, ‘Training to Fight Illicit Goods’ https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Illicit goods/Training-to-fight-illicit-goods accessed 12 January 2026.
• WCO, ‘Enforcement and Compliance: Publications’ https://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/enforcement-and compliance/resources/publications.aspx accessed 12 January 2026.
• WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipolex accessed 12 January 2026.
Conference Reports
• International IP Crime Conference, ‘Oslo IP Crime Conference Report’ (IIPCIC 2022) https://www.iipcic.org/documents/Oslo%20IP%20Crime%20Conference%20Report.p df accessed 12 January 2026.
