In July 2025, Ecuador made legal history as the first country in Latin America to convict individuals under the charge of "asociación ilícita" (illegal association) for their involvement in trademark counterfeiting. This case represents a significant step forward in how Latin American nations approach intellectual property (IP) protection and combat counterfeit activities.
The Case Overview
The conviction involved a well-structured network that manufactured and distributed counterfeit sneakers bearing the labels of major brands, including Nike, Puma, and Adidas. Under Ecuador's Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP), Article 370 was used to charge three defendants for their roles in organizing this illegal operation.
The court identified key functions within the network: manufacturing, labeling, and distribution. This recognition underscored the importance of dismantling organized structures involved in IP violations.
Legal and Enforcement Insights
- Illicit Association as a Legal Tool: The conviction demonstrates how "illegal association" can be used to target not only individual actions but also the organizational framework supporting IP infringements.
- International Context: The case reflects a global challenge, with counterfeit trade posing risks to public safety, consumer trust, and the global economy. International organizations such as A-CAPP and HSI have highlighted the need for enhanced cooperation and collaboration.
- Institutional Coordination: Ecuador's success depended on the coordinated efforts of the Prosecutor’s Office (FEDOTI), police units, and trademark holders. Advanced financial and technological analysis were employed to identify and dismantle networks.
Implications and Future Directions
The ruling establishes a precedent in Ecuador, shifting focus from administrative measures to criminal enforcement of IP rights. It suggests that prosecuting organized structures may be more effective than addressing isolated counterfeiting incidents. The case also implies that stronger institutional capabilities and public-private partnerships are essential for maintaining progress.
Ecuador's approach offers a model for other regions facing similar challenges. By prioritizing legal frameworks and coordinated enforcement, the country has set a benchmark for IP protection. However, sustained vigilance, legislative support, and international cooperation will be critical to fostering a secure and fair commercial environment. This ruling not only addresses a specific legal violation but signals a broader shift toward comprehensive enforcement of IP rights.
Conclusion
Ecuador's case is a milestone in the fight against trademark counterfeiting, serving as a potential template for other regions. The success highlights the value of criminal prosecution and institutional collaboration in safeguarding IP rights. While much work remains, this ruling underscores the importance of robust legal frameworks and proactive enforcement to combat counterfeit trade and protect intellectual property.