In El Salvador, IP crimes are regulated primarily under Articles 226–229 of the Criminal Code, within the section governing offences related to IP. These provisions establish criminal liability for acts such as copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting and other violations of protected IP rights.

The authorities involved in criminal enforcement include the Attorney General’s Office, the Civil National Police and General Directorate of Customs in cases involving import-related infringements, and if necessary, the criminal courts.

Pursuant to the reforms introduced by the new Intellectual Property Law, criminal proceedings may be initiated either through a complaint filed by the rights holder or ex officio by the authorities.

Once criminal proceedings are initiated, investigative measures may include search and seizure operations, confiscation of infringing goods, precautionary measures, and technical expert examinations.

Rights holders play an active role in the enforcement process, as they are responsible for providing the necessary evidence to support prosecution, including expert opinions, certificates of ownership, and other relevant documentation.

In El Salvador, criminal proceedings related to IP are primarily governed by the Criminal Code and the Intellectual Property Law.

In practice, criminal enforcement most commonly involves trademarks and copyrights, particularly in cases of trademark counterfeiting, piracy, and the unauthorized commercial use or reproduction of protected works. These types of infringements are the most frequently prosecuted due to their commercial impact and prevalence in the market.

Customs regulations and border measures may also apply in cases involving the importation, distribution, or commercialization of infringing goods, especially with respect to trademark counterfeiting.

While patents and inventions are also protected under the legal framework, infringement cases involving these rights are rarely subject to criminal proceedings in practice.

In El Salvador, criminal offences related to IP primarily include:

• Copyright and related rights infringement (Article 226).
• Violation of rights over satellite signals.
• Infringement of invention rights (patent infringement).
• Infringement of trade distinctive signs (trademark infringement) (Article 229).
• Commercial breach of trust.
• Disclosure or misappropriation of trade secrets.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, led by the Attorney General’s Office, which must establish the existence of the protected right, the infringing conduct, and the criminal intent. In practice, rights holders play a key role by providing essential evidence, including certificates of ownership, expert opinions, and technical documentation to support the prosecution.

Penalties for IP crimes may include imprisonment or community service, depending on the nature and severity of the offense, with imprisonment typically ranging from two to four years.

Infringing goods are typically subject to seizure during the investigation and, upon conviction, may be confiscated and ordered for destruction by the criminal courts, to prevent their reintroduction into commerce. In certain cases, where the trademark or distinctive sign can be removed, the judge may order the donation of the goods.

Rights holders are expected to actively participate in the criminal process by filing complaints when required, assisting the authorities during investigations, designating experts, providing technical and legal support throughout the proceedings and providing storage facilities for seized goods when state warehouses are at full capacity, a situation that is currently occurring.

IP criminal cases are heard by ordinary criminal courts with general jurisdiction. These include peace courts, courts of first instance, investigating courts, and sentencing courts, depending on the procedural stage of the case.

Without prejudice to any applicable criminal actions, the holder of a right protected under the Intellectual Property Law may bring a civil action before the competent court against any person who infringes such right. Civil actions may also be brought against individuals or entities whose conduct clearly indicates an imminent risk of infringement.

The applicable legal framework includes:

• the Intellectual Property Law;
• the Civil and Commercial Code; and
• the Civil and Commercial Procedural Law.

In most cases, civil IP disputes are heard by the civil and commercial courts. Where the alleged infringer is a foreign entity, jurisdiction typically lies with the courts of San Salvador.

In addition to claims for damages, rights holders may request provisional (precautionary) measures aimed at preventing infringement, avoiding its consequences, preserving evidence, and ensuring the effectiveness of the action and compensation for damages. Such measures may be requested prior to the filing of the action, jointly with it, or after it has been initiated. When ordered prior to the filing of the action, the measures lapse by operation of law if the action is not filed within 15 business days from their execution.

The court may require the applicant to post a bond or other security sufficient to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuse of the procedure. Provisional measures must be ordered and executed within 48 hours from the filing of the request, provided that evidence of ownership of the infringed right is submitted, and the infringement or its imminence is sufficiently demonstrated. Where a bond is required, the statutory term runs from the filing of the required security.

Available provisional measures include, among others:

• the immediate cessation of the infringing acts;
• the seizure, inventory, description, or deposit of infringing products, packaging, labels, and materials bearing the infringing trademark or sign, as well as the instruments or materials used to commit the infringement and relevant documentary evidence; and
• the suspension of the importation, exportation, or transit of the infringing goods, through the issuance of the corresponding order to the General Directorate of Customs.

The court may also order the alleged infringer to provide information regarding persons involved in the production or commercialization of the infringing goods or services, the means of production, and the distribution channels, including the identification of third parties involved.

When the action is based on a patent, its validity is presumed unless proven otherwise.

As regards damages, compensation may be calculated, at the option of the injured party, based on actual damages suffered, lost profits, a hypothetical license fee or royalty, or any other criterion deemed appropriate by the judge. Additionally, the infringer may be ordered to pay any profits attributable to the infringement that were not considered in the calculation of damages.

Overall, the IP owner is entitled to seek injunctive relief, provisional measures, full compensation for damages, access to relevant information, and effective judicial protection through civil proceedings; However, in practice these mechanisms are rarely used due to procedural delays, heavy court caseloads and the limited practical effectiveness of provisional measures.

Rights holders can best protect their IP and place themselves in a strong position to effectively utilize available civil remedies by ensuring that their rights are properly registered, maintained, and enforced in a timely manner.

In practice, this includes keeping registrations up to date, maintaining complete and well-organized records of ownership and use, and actively monitoring the market to detect potential infringements at an early stage. Prompt action upon detecting an infringement is essential, particularly where provisional measures may be sought.

Under Salvadoran law, the following civil remedies are available to IP rights holders:

• Injunctions, including the immediate cessation of infringing acts.
• Provisional (precautionary) measures, such as the seizure, inventory, deposit, or preservation of infringing goods, materials, and relevant evidence.
• Suspension of importation, exportation, or transit of infringing goods, through court orders issued to the General Directorate of Customs, Dirección General de Aduanas.
• Damages, calculated based on actual damages suffered, lost profits, or a reasonable royalty or license fee.
• Accounting and recovery of profits attributable to the infringement that were not considered in the calculation of damages.
• Confiscation and destruction of infringing goods, ordered by the competent court.
• Orders to provide information, requiring the infringer to disclose information regarding production, commercialization, and distribution channels.

Punitive damages are not expressly provided for under Salvadoran law. Recovery of legal costs may be calculated in accordance with general civil procedural rules.

Under Salvadoran law, damages for IP infringement may be calculated, at the option of the rights holder, based on the actual damages suffered, the profits the rights holder would have reasonably obtained but for the infringement, or a reasonable royalty or license fee that would have been payable under a hypothetical licensing agreement. Additionally, the infringer may be ordered to account for and pay any profits attributable to the infringement that were not included in the calculation of damages.

In February of this year, a relevant case involved two Chinese nationals who were engaged not only in the importation of counterfeit goods, but also in their distribution for sale in the main commercial areas of the country. The investigation revealed that the counterfeit products were intended to be sold locally and also exported to Honduras and Guatemala.

The case is currently still under investigation and has progressed to the next procedural stage. The individuals allegedly responsible have been detained by the authorities.

In El Salvador, the sale and distribution of grey market goods, as well as parallel imports, are legal in principle. Consequently, sellers of grey market goods are not subject to criminal penalties, provided that the goods are genuine and no other unlawful conduct is involved.

In addition to IP legislation, several other legal frameworks in El Salvador may significantly impact the manufacture, importation, distribution, and commercialization of counterfeit products.

The Consumer Protection Law plays a key role by regulating product safety, labeling, truthful information, and consumer rights, allowing authorities to sanction the commercialization of counterfeit or unsafe goods that may mislead or harm consumers.

The Health Code provides a general framework for the protection of public health and authorizes health authorities to control, restrict, or prohibit the commercialization of products that pose risks to health, including counterfeit goods.

The Medicines Law, together with the General Regulation on Medicines, establishes strict requirements for the registration, importation, distribution, and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and related goods. Counterfeit medicines or products that fail to meet these regulatory requirements may be subject to administrative sanctions, seizure, and withdrawal from the market, independently of any IP enforcement actions.

In El Salvador, criminal enforcement offers significant advantages in IP matters, particularly due to the availability of coercive measures such as raids, seizures, and border actions, as well as the involvement of specialized law enforcement authorities. These mechanisms often provide a more immediate and effective response to large-scale counterfeiting and organized infringement, making criminal proceedings a key enforcement tool in practice.

However, criminal enforcement also presents challenges, including the need for active participation by authorities, the burden of providing technical evidence and expert support, and limitations in institutional resources.

Civil enforcement, on the other hand, provides a broader range of remedies in theory, including injunctive relief, provisional measures, and compensation for damages. Nevertheless, in practice, civil actions face significant challenges, such as lengthy proceedings, heavy caseloads in civil and commercial courts, and the limited effectiveness of provisional measures. As a result, civil enforcement is not used in practice and is widely perceived as ineffective in providing timely and effective protection of IP rights.

Overall, while both systems coexist within the legal framework, criminal enforcement remains the more practical and effective avenue for addressing serious IP infringements, whereas civil enforcement continues to face structural and procedural challenges that limit its effectiveness.

Recent cases in El Salvador reveal that counterfeiters have adopted more sophisticated methods to avoid detection. One common practice involves importing unbranded or “plain” products without any trademarks or distinctive signs, while the packaging, labels, or logos are imported separately in different shipments. The final branding and labeling of the products is then carried out domestically, allowing counterfeiters to evade detection during the import process.

Additionally, there have been instances where counterfeit goods are introduced into the country through informal or unmonitored border crossings along land borders, bypassing official customs controls altogether.

To combat these methods, it is essential to strengthen import controls and risk analysis mechanisms, particularly for shipments involving goods commonly associated with counterfeiting. The creation and monitoring of a list of repeat or high-risk importers would allow authorities to identify suspicious patterns more effectively. Increased oversight and inspections of warehouses and storage facilities where the final branding or labeling of products may occur is also crucial. Finally, enhanced coordination between customs authorities, law enforcement agencies, and rights holders would significantly improve the detection and disruption of these evolving counterfeiting practices.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the use of online marketplaces and social networking platforms for the sale and promotion of counterfeit goods. These channels are increasingly used due to their accessibility, anonymity, and the ability to reach a wide audience with relatively low risk of immediate enforcement.

Overall, while online counterfeiting activity has grown significantly, it has not replaced traditional physical counterfeiting. Instead, both channels now coexist and complement each other, presenting additional challenges for enforcement authorities and rights holders.

There has been a noticeable increase in the promotion and sale of products through live shopping formats, particularly via live video streams on TikTok. These live sessions are increasingly used to offer and sell goods in real time, often with limited traceability of the sellers.

Rights holders have found it especially challenging to monitor and enforce IP rights on these platforms. The ephemeral nature of live streams, the speed at which content is created and removed, and the frequent use of multiple or anonymous accounts make evidence collection and enforcement actions more complex. As a result, tracking infringing activity and identifying responsible parties in live shopping environments remains a significant enforcement challenge.

“Dupe culture” and “knockoff culture” have contributed to the increase in counterfeit goods being sold both online and in physical retail locations. This is largely because consumers often do not fully understand the fine line between a lawful “dupe” and an IP infringement that constitutes counterfeiting.

In practice, products marketed as “dupes” frequently replicate protected trademarks, trade dress, or other distinctive elements to such an extent that they cross into infringement. This normalization of imitation has reduced consumer sensitivity to IP violations and has facilitated the acceptance and demand for counterfeit goods in the market.

To date, no specific new legislation has been proposed or implemented in El Salvador to shift responsibility directly to online marketplaces for vetting sellers or proactively removing counterfeit or infringing goods. Enforcement efforts continue to rely on the existing legal framework, which authorities and rights holders attempt to adapt to these new digital scenarios. However, applying traditional laws to online marketplaces remains challenging and represents an ongoing enforcement difficulty.

In practice, there have been no significant changes or meaningful progress in El Salvador that would allow rights holders to pursue a more financially focused enforcement strategy against counterfeit sellers or networks.

While the legal framework formally allows for the recovery of damages and the execution of judgments, the collection of monetary awards and the seizure of assets remain difficult and largely ineffective in practice. Civil enforcement mechanisms are rarely used, and there are no streamlined procedures specifically designed to identify, freeze, or confiscate assets derived from counterfeiting activities.

Notwithstanding the above, the current enforcement approach adopted in coordination with the authorities focuses on obtaining criminal convictions rather than pursuing monetary damages, with the objective of setting legal precedents, raising awareness, and deterring repeat offenses.

In El Salvador, the most problematic platforms within the brand protection landscape of clients continue to be Facebook, Instagram and Marketplace, which are widely used for the promotion and sale of counterfeit goods through posts, stories, private groups, and direct messaging. These platforms remain a primary channel for informal and illicit commercial activity, due to their wide user base and the ease with which sellers can create accounts and advertise products.

In the last 12–18 months, TikTok has emerged as a particularly problematic platform. There has been a significant increase in the offering and sale of counterfeit products through live video streams (“TikTok Live”), where sellers promote products in real time and complete transactions off-platform, making monitoring, evidence gathering, and enforcement more challenging.

As a result, social media platforms, particularly those enabling live selling and direct interaction with consumers, are a central focus of brand protection strategies in the jurisdiction.

Domain name disputes in El Salvador are generally addressed through administrative mechanisms rather than through court proceedings. In practice, disputes involving generic top-level domains (gTLDs), such as .com, .net or .org, are typically resolved through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), administered by dispute resolution providers accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Regarding the country code top-level domain for El Salvador, .sv, domain name registrations are administered by SVNet. Disputes related to .sv domain names may be addressed through administrative procedures provided by the registry or through negotiations with the registrant, and, if necessary, through civil actions based on trademark infringement or unfair competition.

In practice, trademark owners often begin by sending cease and desist letters or requesting voluntary transfers of the disputed domain name before initiating formal proceedings.

In terms of trends, there has been an increase in domain names that incorporate well-known trademarks combined with commercial or descriptive terms, often used to support e-commerce websites or online stores offering counterfeit or unauthorized products. In some cases, these domain names are linked to social media accounts or digital marketplaces used to promote and distribute infringing goods.

Additionally, domain name registrations reflecting current technological trends or global events have occasionally been observed, including references to emerging digital concepts such as the “metaverse,” online platforms, or other trending commercial terms. However, the most common pattern continues to involve domain names used as part of broader online schemes for the marketing and sale of counterfeit goods.

There is an increase in counterfeit/fraudulent websites in El Salvador. In recent years, certain patterns have been observed in the registration and use of domain names associated with the promotion or sale of counterfeit or unauthorized goods. A common trend involves domain names incorporating well-known trademarks together with geographical references or commercial terms, creating the impression that the website is an official local store or authorized distributor.

In some cases, the domain name is not used as a full e-commerce website but rather as a landing page that redirects users to social media platforms or messaging applications where the products are marketed and sold. For example, domains such as “puma-sv.shop” have been used to redirect users to Instagram accounts promoting the sale of sportswear, while domains such as “puma-store-sv.com” redirect users to WhatsApp Business accounts through which sellers communicate directly with customers and complete transactions. Similarly, domains such as “puma-elsalvador-shop.com” may be used to reinforce the appearance of an official local online store while directing users to external platforms for the actual sale of the products.

These practices are increasingly common in online infringement schemes, particularly in cases involving the promotion of goods through social media channels rather than traditional e-commerce websites.

The expansion of new top-level domains (TLDs), such as .shop, .store or .online, has created additional opportunities for fraudulent networks to register domain names that appear legitimate and are used to promote counterfeit or unauthorized goods. These new TLDs often allow infringers to combine well-known trademarks with commercial terms in order to create websites that resemble official online stores.

In practice, some of these domains are used to host temporary online shops, while others function primarily as landing pages that redirect users to social media platforms or messaging applications where the products are marketed and sold. This trend has increased the number of potentially infringing domains that rights holders must monitor and enforce against.

In El Salvador there has been a noticeable increase in the promotion and sale of counterfeit or unauthorized goods through online platforms. Social media platforms have become one of the main channels used by infringers to advertise and distribute products, particularly through accounts dedicated to the promotion of clothing, footwear, cosmetics and electronic accessories.

Platforms such as Meta Platforms’ services — including Facebook and Instagram — remain widely used for this purpose, as sellers can easily create business pages or profiles to promote products and communicate directly with consumers. Short-form video platforms such as TikTok are also increasingly being used to showcase products through promotional videos that link viewers to messaging applications or external sales channels.

In many cases, these platforms are used primarily for marketing purposes, while the actual transaction takes place through messaging applications or other informal channels.

Social media continues to be a critical tool for bad actors in El Salvador. Infringers frequently create accounts that appear to represent official distributors or authorized retailers of well-known brands. These accounts often display product images, promotional offers and discount campaigns designed to attract consumers.

Examples commonly observed include social media pages that use brand names combined with geographic references (e.g., references to El Salvador or local cities) to create the impression of an official local store. These accounts typically redirect consumers to messaging platforms to finalize purchases.

Bad actors in El Salvador use several methods to evade detection and enforcement actions. These include:

• Frequently changing account names or creating new social media profiles once a page has been reported or removed.
• Using private or closed groups to promote products to a limited audience.
• Redirecting customers from public posts to private messaging channels where the transaction takes place.
• Avoiding the direct display of trademarks in some listings, instead relying on coded language, abbreviations, or images.
• Using domain names or landing pages that redirect to messaging applications or social media profiles.

These tactics make it more difficult for rights holders and authorities to track and identify the individuals responsible.

Messaging applications and private communication channels are increasingly used to facilitate illicit commerce. In El Salvador, platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram are frequently used to finalize transactions after initial contact is made through social media platforms.

In many cases, sellers provide catalogues, price lists and payment instructions through these private channels, which reduces the visibility of the transaction and complicates enforcement efforts.

Over the past 12 months, some online platforms have implemented improved reporting mechanisms and IP complaint systems that allow rights holders to request the removal of infringing content more efficiently. However, enforcement challenges remain.

While takedown procedures are generally available, infringers often reappear quickly by creating new accounts or shifting their activities to different platforms. Additionally, the use of private messaging services to finalize transactions limits the effectiveness of platform-based enforcement tools.

At present, El Salvador does not have a comprehensive legal framework specifically regulating AI. However, discussions regarding the regulation of emerging technologies, including AI, have begun to emerge in policy and regulatory forums.

While AI has not yet become a significant issue in anti-counterfeiting enforcement in El Salvador, it may become increasingly relevant in areas such as automated online content generation, digital fraud and brand impersonation.

Certain aspects of AI-related activities may nevertheless fall within the scope of existing legislation, depending on the context. For example, issues relating to intellectual property, data protection, consumer protection, and electronic commerce may be addressed under the applicable legal frameworks currently in force.

As AI technologies continue to develop and become more integrated into commercial and digital activities, it is expected that regulatory discussions in El Salvador may evolve toward the adoption of more specific guidelines or legislative initiatives in the future.

To date, there are no specific formal guidelines issued by the national governing bodies for lawyers in El Salvador regarding the use of AI in legal practice.

However, lawyers remain subject to general professional and ethical obligations, including duties of confidentiality, professional diligence, and responsibility toward clients. Accordingly, any use of AI tools in legal work would need to comply with these existing ethical and professional standards.

As in many jurisdictions, discussions regarding the responsible use of AI in legal services are beginning to emerge, but formal regulatory criteria have not yet been established.

Currently, there are no specific provisions within Salvadoran legislation that directly address the impact of AI on privacy or data protection frameworks.

Nevertheless, activities involving the processing or handling of personal data through AI-based technologies may still fall under existing privacy and data protection principles where applicable. As digital technologies continue to expand, it is likely that future regulatory developments may consider the interaction between AI systems and privacy protections.

At present, deepfakes are not yet a frequent issue in brand enforcement matters in El Salvador. Most cases involving brand abuse or counterfeiting continue to be associated with the unauthorized use of trademarks, images of genuine products, or misleading advertising on social media and online marketplaces rather than AI-generated deepfake content.

However, given the increasing accessibility of AI tools capable of generating synthetic images, videos and voices, there is growing awareness among rights holders and practitioners of the potential risks that deepfakes may pose to brand reputation and consumer trust.

When potentially misleading digital content affecting a brand’s image is detected, the typical approach involves monitoring online platforms, gathering digital evidence, and requesting the removal of infringing or misleading content through the reporting mechanisms of the relevant platforms. In some cases, cease and desist communications may also be issued to the responsible parties.

As the use of generative AI technologies continues to expand, it is expected that rights holders may need to develop more proactive monitoring and response strategies to address potential misuse of brand imagery or identity in AI-generated content.

El Salvador has adopted legislation relating to cryptocurrency, most notably through the Ley Bitcoin, which was enacted in 2021 and recognizes bitcoin as legal tender in the country alongside the US dollar. The law establishes the regulatory framework for the use of bitcoin in financial transactions, including provisions related to its acceptance as a means of payment, the convertibility between bitcoin and US dollars, and the infrastructure required to facilitate its use.

In addition, the government has promoted the development of a broader digital asset ecosystem, including legislation such as the Ley de Emisión de Activos Digitales de El Salvador, which provides a regulatory framework for the issuance, offering and trading of digital assets and establishes oversight mechanisms for participants operating within this sector.

These legislative initiatives position El Salvador as one of the jurisdictions that has taken a proactive approach toward the regulation and adoption of cryptocurrency and digital asset technologies. However, the regulatory environment continues to evolve as authorities assess the economic and technological implications of these developments.

At present, El Salvador does not have specific legislation exclusively addressing piracy through online streaming services. However, unauthorized streaming of protected audiovisual content may fall within the scope of copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law of El Salvador.

The law protects authors and rights holders against the unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, distribution, or exploitation of protected works, including audiovisual content distributed through digital networks. Accordingly, the unauthorized streaming or retransmission of copyrighted content may constitute an infringement of copyright or related rights.

In practice, enforcement actions in cases involving digital piracy may include civil actions initiated by rights holders and, in certain circumstances, criminal proceedings where the infringement is carried out intentionally and for commercial purposes.

Site blocking orders are not commonly used in El Salvador, and there is currently no specific regulatory framework establishing a standardized mechanism for court-ordered blocking of websites dedicated to piracy.

Nevertheless, rights holders may pursue enforcement actions under the Intellectual Property Law, which provides civil, administrative and criminal remedies against copyright infringement. These remedies may include injunctions aimed at stopping infringing activities, the seizure of infringing materials, and claims for damages.

In practice, enforcement strategies often focus on identifying the individuals responsible for the infringing activity, gathering digital evidence, and requesting the removal of infringing content from online platforms through their reporting or takedown procedures. Criminal complaints may also be filed before the Fiscalía General de la República de El Salvador when the infringement involves commercial-scale piracy or organized distribution of unauthorized content.

At present, QR code abuse has not yet been identified as a widespread tactic in online phishing or brand abuse cases in El Salvador. Most cases of online infringement or fraudulent activity affecting rights holders continue to involve social media accounts, misleading online advertisements, or unauthorized e-commerce websites promoting counterfeit goods.

However, as QR codes are increasingly used for payments, marketing campaigns and digital interactions, there is growing awareness of their potential misuse in phishing schemes. Such tactics may involve directing users to fraudulent websites designed to imitate legitimate brands or services.

For this reason, rights holders and brand protection practitioners are increasingly attentive to emerging forms of digital fraud and continue to monitor online channels for new tactics that could affect brand reputation or consumer trust.

Border enforcement measures in El Salvador are carried out primarily by the customs authority, the Dirección General de Aduanas de El Salvador, in coordination with other government entities.

Under the Intellectual Property Law of El Salvador and related customs regulations, customs authorities may detain or suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights, including counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright materials.

Customs may act either upon request of the rights holder or, in certain circumstances, ex officio, when officials identify suspicious shipments during routine inspections. Once a suspicious shipment is detected, the rights holder may be notified to verify whether the goods are infringing and to initiate the appropriate legal action.

When a shipment suspected of containing counterfeit goods is detected, customs authorities may temporarily detain the goods while the matter is reviewed.

During this process, the rights holder is typically contacted to inspect the goods and confirm whether they are counterfeit. If the goods are confirmed to be infringing, the rights holder may initiate the criminal proceedings.

Costs related to detention, handling, storage or destruction of the goods may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. In practice, such costs are generally borne by the importer or the party responsible for the infringing goods once infringement has been confirmed. However, certain procedural costs may initially be assumed by the rights holder particularly with respect to storage when there is no available space or government storage facilities.

One of the main benefits of the Salvadoran border enforcement system is the possibility for customs authorities to cooperate with rights holders in identifying suspicious shipments and preventing counterfeit goods from entering the market.

Another advantage is the coordination between customs authorities and other law enforcement entities, which can facilitate the initiation of criminal investigations when organized counterfeiting operations are detected.

However, challenges remain, including limited resources, the growing volume of international shipments, and the increasing use of small parcels and courier services, which may complicate the detection of counterfeit goods at the border.

Over the past few years, border enforcement efforts in El Salvador have gradually strengthened through improved cooperation between customs authorities and rights holders.

Increased awareness of IP protection and the growing use of training initiatives have helped customs officers better identify counterfeit products. As international trade and e-commerce continue to expand, enforcement authorities are also adapting their monitoring and inspection practices.

Future improvements may include enhanced technological tools for risk analysis and stronger cooperation with rights holders and international enforcement networks.

Customs authorities in El Salvador maintain cooperative relationships with other enforcement bodies, particularly the Civil National Police of El Salvador and the Attorney General’s Office of El Salvador.

When suspected counterfeit goods are identified at the border and there is evidence of criminal activity, customs may coordinate with these authorities in order to initiate criminal investigations and enforcement actions.

Through the border enforcement process, customs authorities may collect information regarding the shipment, including the identity of the importer, exporter, shipping details and product descriptions.

Such information may be shared with the rights holder for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the goods and supporting enforcement actions. In some cases, this information may also be used as evidence in administrative, civil or criminal proceedings.

However, the use of such information is subject to applicable legal and procedural rules governing confidentiality and due process.

Importers found to be involved in the importation of counterfeit goods may face several types of legal consequences.

These may include the seizure and destruction of the infringing goods, administrative sanctions, civil liability for damages claimed by the rights holder, and, in cases involving intentional or commercial-scale infringement, criminal prosecution.

Criminal proceedings may be initiated before the Fiscalía General de la República de El Salvador when the circumstances meet the applicable legal thresholds.

Training initiatives for customs and law enforcement authorities play an important role in improving the identification of counterfeit products.

In El Salvador, rights holders and their representatives may collaborate with authorities to provide training sessions, product identification materials and technical guidance to assist officials in recognizing genuine versus counterfeit goods.

These training activities often involve practical demonstrations, product comparison exercises and information regarding common counterfeiting patterns. Cooperation between brands and enforcement authorities is generally considered an important component in strengthening the effectiveness of border enforcement efforts.

Recent global and regional disruptions, including supply-chain challenges and economic pressures, have had some impact on enforcement activities in El Salvador. During periods of global disruption, including the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities observed changes in the way counterfeit goods were marketed and distributed, with a stronger shift toward online channels and social media platforms.

In addition, supply-chain adjustments and the growth of cross-border e-commerce have increased the number of smaller shipments entering the country through courier and postal services. This trend has required enforcement authorities to adapt their monitoring and inspection practices.

Some of these changes — particularly the expansion of online sales channels and the use of small parcel shipments — appear to be longer-term developments rather than temporary effects. Authorities and rights holders have therefore increasingly focused on strengthening digital monitoring and cooperation with customs and law enforcement to address these evolving distribution methods.

In recent years, enforcement authorities in El Salvador have continued to detect counterfeit goods in several common product categories. These typically include apparel, footwear, accessories, cosmetics, and electronic accessories, which remain among the most frequently encountered counterfeit products in the local market.

There has also been a noticeable presence of counterfeit sportswear and branded consumer goods promoted through online platforms and social media channels. These products are often imported in relatively small shipments intended for distribution through informal retail networks or online sales channels.

The continued demand for well-known consumer brands, combined with the expansion of online sales platforms and cross-border e-commerce, appears to be one of the key factors driving these trends. As a result, enforcement efforts increasingly focus on identifying supply chains and distribution channels associated with these product categories.