Georgia has materially strengthened its customs and anti-counterfeiting framework over the past two years, introducing administrative procedures that, in practice, create asymmetric enforcement risks for foreign trademark and patent holders when their Georgian counterparty is a state-owned or state-affiliated enterprise. Foreign rights holders operating in or exporting to Georgia — including companies whose goods transit the country en route to regional markets — should reassess their IP protection posture in light of these developments.
Georgia's legal framework for IP protection is grounded in its Law on Intellectual Property and the Customs Code, both of which have been amended incrementally since 2022. The most consequential recent developments concern the customs border enforcement mechanism administered by the Revenue Service of the Ministry of Finance of Georgia, which has steadily expanded its administrative toolkit for intercepting suspected counterfeit goods at the border.
Under the current framework, the Revenue Service may suspend the release of goods on its own initiative — without a rights holder's prior application — when its officers have reasonable grounds to suspect an IP infringement. This ex officio power, while aligned with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Georgia's obligations under its Association Agreement with the European Union, is relatively new in its active deployment. Rights holders who have not recorded their marks or patents with the Revenue Service find themselves reacting to detentions rather than initiating them, which materially affects their ability to gather evidence and meet administrative deadlines.
The amendments also introduced a more structured procedure for rights holders to lodge border watch applications — the Georgian equivalent of a customs recordal — requiring substantiation of the mark's validity, the territorial scope of rights, and a description of genuine goods sufficient for customs officers to make comparisons. The deadline to respond to a suspended shipment, once the rights holder is notified, remains tight: failure to act within the prescribed window results in automatic release of the detained goods, regardless of the underlying infringement.
For companies whose products enter Georgia from Russia, Turkey, or China — the three primary source jurisdictions for counterfeit goods intercepted at Georgian customs — the border enforcement mechanism now represents the most operationally efficient point of intervention. Internal market enforcement, by contrast, still relies substantially on judicial proceedings before the Tbilisi City Court and the Court of Appeals, which are more resource-intensive and slower to produce results.
The involvement of a state-owned or state-affiliated enterprise as the alleged infringer introduces a set of complications that foreign rights holders frequently underestimate. Three dynamics are particularly relevant in the Georgian context.
First, standing and evidentiary access. State-owned enterprises in Georgia — including entities in the energy, transport, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical distribution sectors — often maintain contractual relationships with government agencies and benefit from procurement preferences that create structural demand for low-cost alternatives to branded goods. When a foreign rights holder initiates proceedings against such an enterprise, access to internal procurement records, import logs, or distribution agreements can be significantly more difficult to compel compared to a private counterparty. Georgian procedural law does not provide for pre-action disclosure in the common law sense, and administrative requests to state bodies may be deflected through public-interest or confidentiality grounds.
Second, enforcement of remedies. Even where a rights holder obtains a favourable judgment — whether an injunction, a damages award, or an order for seizure and destruction of infringing goods — enforcement against a state-owned enterprise can encounter practical delays that do not arise in ordinary commercial disputes. Enforcement proceedings in Georgia are administered by the National Bureau of Enforcement, a state body, which may exercise discretion in prioritising and executing court orders against entities in which the state holds a controlling interest.
Third, the reputational and regulatory dimension. Foreign companies that pursue IP enforcement against state-owned enterprises in Georgia sometimes find that the enforcement action triggers a parallel regulatory or customs examination of their own importation practices, labelling compliance, or licensing arrangements. While there is no legal basis for such examinations to be initiated in bad faith, the practical effect can be to increase the cost and complexity of the enforcement action beyond what the rights holder initially anticipated.
"Georgia's customs framework has moved considerably closer to EU standards in its design, but the practical gap between the written rule and the enforcement environment — particularly where the counterparty is a state-affiliated entity — remains a material consideration for any foreign rights holder developing an IP strategy for the Georgian market." — Nino Beridze, Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia, Vetrov & Partners
[CTA: Foreign companies facing IP enforcement questions involving Georgian state-owned or state-affiliated entities should obtain specialist counsel early. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]
The practical gap between the statutory framework and the enforcement environment in Georgia — particularly where the counterparty is a state-owned enterprise — suggests three priority actions for foreign rights holders.
Record your rights with the Georgian Revenue Service. A formal border watch application activates ex officio intervention rights and ensures that the rights holder is notified upon detention, triggering the formal response clock. Rights holders that have not yet completed this step are structurally disadvantaged if a detention occurs, because they will be responding to the Revenue Service's initiative rather than their own. The application requires a valid Georgian trademark registration or, for foreign marks, a registration recognised under Georgia's international IP obligations — meaning that rights holders without Georgian registrations should address that gap first.
Assess your counterparty's state nexus before commencing enforcement. When the anticipated respondent is an enterprise with state ownership — whether direct, majority, or through a holding structure — a litigation strategy calibrated for a private counterparty will typically need revision. The evidential gathering plan, the choice between administrative and judicial proceedings, and the enforcement timeline assumptions all require adjustment. In a recent matter, counsel acting for a European consumer goods company found that identifying the precise ownership structure of a Georgian distribution entity — which had a minority state holding that was not reflected in the public register — materially changed the settlement calculus before proceedings commenced.
Consider cross-border coordination where goods transit Georgia. Foreign rights holders who rely on the Russia–Georgia–Turkey corridor for regional distribution — or who face infringement of goods sourced from those directions — should consider whether coordinated enforcement across multiple customs jurisdictions offers a more effective deterrent than Georgian enforcement alone. Coordinated customs recordals in the source jurisdiction and in Georgia can intercept infringing goods before they reach the Georgian market and reduce the procedural burden on the Georgian enforcement mechanism.
For companies whose Georgian exposure arises through cross-border distribution or transit arrangements, the IP Protection & Enforcement practice at Vetrov & Partners advises on the full enforcement cycle, from rights registration to customs recordal to litigation support. See the firm's Georgian practice overview at [IP Protection & Enforcement – Georgia](/jurisdictions/georgia/). The firm also advises on enforcement in comparable post-Soviet markets, including [Kazakhstan](/jurisdictions/kazakhstan/ip/) and [Uzbekistan](/jurisdictions/uzbekistan/ip/).
Q: What specifically changed in Georgian anti-counterfeiting and customs enforcement, and when did the changes take effect?
A: The most significant changes relate to the Revenue Service's ex officio suspension power and the formal border watch application procedure, both of which have been operationally active since amendments to the Customs Code and related implementing regulations took effect from 2022 to 2024. In practical terms, customs officers now routinely exercise the power to detain suspect goods without a prior rights holder application, and the formal border watch mechanism — previously underused — has become the standard tool for proactive enforcement. The compressed response deadline for rights holders following a detention notice represents the sharpest change in day-to-day enforcement practice.
Q: Which types of foreign companies are most directly affected by these enforcement developments in relation to state-owned enterprises?
A: The enforcement risk is most acute for foreign manufacturers and distributors of branded goods — particularly in the pharmaceutical, consumer goods, electronics, and industrial equipment sectors — whose products are imported into or transit Georgia and where a state-owned enterprise is involved in distribution, procurement, or resale. Companies that supply goods to Georgian public institutions directly or through intermediate distributors with state equity stakes are also exposed, as are foreign rights holders whose brands have been registered in bad faith by Georgian entities seeking to capture import substitution demand.
Q: What is the recommended first step for a foreign company that discovers a Georgian state-owned enterprise is distributing counterfeit versions of its goods?
A: The immediate priority is to verify the scope and status of the company's Georgian IP registrations and to assess whether a border watch application has been lodged with the Revenue Service. If neither is in place, enforcement options are constrained: judicial proceedings remain available but are slower and more evidentially demanding without the customs recordal underpinning. Simultaneously, the company should map the ownership structure of the state-owned enterprise precisely — including any holding company or state agency intermediary — because the enforcement pathway, the available remedies, and the practical timeline will differ materially depending on the degree of state control. Early advice from counsel familiar with both the Georgian IP enforcement framework and the specific procedural considerations applicable to state-affiliated counterparties is advisable before any formal step is taken.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.
The firm's IP Protection & Enforcement practice advises foreign trademark owners, manufacturers, and distributors on rights registration, customs recordal, and enforcement proceedings across Russian and post-Soviet jurisdictions, including Georgia. This article was prepared with the assistance of Nino Beridze, a regional analyst specialising in Georgian business law and IP matters. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge with direct partner involvement on every engagement.
Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom
[CTA: For advice on IP protection and customs enforcement strategy in Georgia, including matters involving state-owned counterparties — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76]
This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.
— Nino Beridze Contributing Regional Analyst — Georgia, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/contributions/