Do Cutting Edge Anti-Counterfeiting Technologies Really Work?

Edible bar codes.

Plant-based DNA strands embedded in military hardware.

Iridescent nanotechnology inspired by butterfly wings.

These are not science fiction topics.  They describe recent developments in anti-counterfeiting technologies that are capturing mainstream news headlines for their creativity in tackling a trillion dollar a year problem facing many industries, ranging from pharmaceuticals to children's toys to military hardware.

The primary purpose of these developing technologies is to assist brand owners with better detection of counterfeit products as they infiltrate the supply chain.

For example, recent studies have discovered a "flood" of fake military hardware components making their way into the U.S. armed forces' vehicles and planes.  The safety threat posed by substandard military grade parts is unimaginable.

Using the new technology, if military hardware components are counterfeit, they will not possess the correct embedded plant DNA, which can be detected with a special inspection tool.

Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry can use edible bar codes to allow for easier tracking and authentication of pills and verification of drug packaging.  Spending by pharmaceutical companies in the anti-counterfeiting tech marketplace is predicted to exceed $1B per year in coming years.

But, while they are clearly effective at detecting counterfeits, are these cutting edge technologies addressing the deeper issues behind the continuing scourge of fake products?

Unfortunately, the data demonstrates that, despite the increasing use of advanced technologies to detect the presence of counterfeits infiltrating the supply chain, the steady supply of counterfeit products continues to skyrocket.

Why?

Because no improvements in DNA-based detection technology can change this simple mathematical equation:  When profits routinely exceed investment, there will be a steady supply of fake products.  Fakes require no research, development or marketing to succeed.  Rather, by passing off a fake product to consumers, a $10 investment can yield $100 in profit, with little or no likelihood of prosecution or penalty.  

This return on investment (ROI) exceeds that of trafficking in the narcotics trade, with less chance of being murdered by the competition or sentences that include decades in a federal penitentiary.

While advanced detection methods are part of the brand protection puzzle, international laws and norms clearly need to become increasingly effective, to deter and punish counterfeiting once it is discovered.

US Marine Corps Logo Stripped After Trademark Issue Surfaces

John Brunner, who proudly served in the U.S. Marine Corps as an Infantry Officer and rose to the rank of Captain, is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri as a Republican.

Brunner had apparently placed the U.S. Marine Corps logo on the back of his campaign bus. 

However, the Marine Corp's logo is federally registered as a trademark, and the Corps clearly frowns on the use of the proud logo for unauthorized commercial or political purposes.

Here is an excerpt from the U.S. Marine Corp's Frequently Asked Questions about its licensing program:

I'm running for a political office and am a former Marine. 

Can I use Marine Corps trademarks on my campaign materials?  

No, you may not use the official Marine Corps Seal, Eagle, Globe and Anchor (EGA), or any other USMC insignia or trademark in this manner, since it might create the impression that your candidacy is endorsed by or affiliated with the USMC in some way, or that the USMC has chosen your candidacy over other candidates. 

You are more than welcome, to simply and accurately state that you are a Marine Corps veteran, that's fine, that's a fact. 

But using the EGA which is a trademark of the USMC, and protected by Federal law (please see 10 USC 7881) is something you may not do. 

This is consistent with the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations which clearly states that the wearing of the uniform in a political context is strictly prohibited. Please see Section 11002(1)(a)(2) and (3) of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations.

The trademark issue had surfaced when local reporters questioned the propriety of Brunner using the logo on his campaign bus under federal laws.

In a statement to local news on Saturday, Brunner's Press Secretary John Sutter said "The campaign believes that the RV does not constitute campaign materials, but we will remove the sticker just to be cautious."