[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it is possible to do this, and it is the most cost-effective interception tool in the import and export process. After registering for intellectual property customs protection with the General Administration of Customs, if the customs finds suspected infringing goods during port inspections, it can suspend the release of the goods on its own authority and notify the rights holders. Rights holders who have not registered can also apply for detention, but they need to provide guarantees themselves and rely on their own clues for discovery. The cost of registration is minimal (one registration covers all ports in China and is valid for ten years, which can be renewed), in exchange for "obligatory sentinels" at all ports. For foreign trade and brand enterprises, registration is a standard action for protecting rights overseas, not an optional one.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Brand counterfeits are rampant in overseas markets. Investigations have found that entire containers of goods are exported from domestic ports; cross-border sellers have found that their registered trademarks have been preemptively registered by competitors, and then they have taken countermeasures to lock down the supply chain — the two-way onslaught of export infringement and import piracy has made customs protection the frontline of intellectual property protection.

II. Key points of contention

First, the two protection models of filing and detention. Second, the process of guarantee and disposition of goods. Third, the maintenance of filing information. Fourth, the linkage with offline rights protection.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first layer distinguishes two protection models: ex officio protection (proactive protection) based on filing—the customs inspects the goods of the rights holder and has the right to suspend the release of suspected infringing import and export goods, notify the rights holder, and allow the rights holder to apply for detention and provide guarantees before entering the investigation and disposal process; application-based protection does not require filing. After the rights holder discovers evidence of infringement, they request the customs to detain the goods and must submit an application, provide substantial guarantees, and provide evidence themselves—the difference between the two models is "the customs helps you monitor" versus "you monitor yourself". The correct approach for foreign trade enterprises is to file first and then set up monitoring mechanisms. The second layer details the process and guarantees: filing materials include proof of rights (trademark registration certificate, patent certificate, copyright registration), enterprise qualifications, and contact information. Trademarks and patents are valid across all ports nationwide during the filing period. Guarantees for detaining goods are provided based on the value of the goods. If the infringement is confirmed, the guarantees are refunded, and the costs are borne by the infringer. If the infringement is established, the customs may confiscate the infringing goods and impose fines. The disposal of confiscated goods (destruction, donation) prevents their re-entry into the market—this forms a closed-loop from interception to disposal, transforming "seizing one container" into "cutting off an entire supply chain". The third layer emphasizes dynamic maintenance of filing information: timely updating filing information for rights changes such as trademark renewal, patent fee payment, and license transfer. Liability for "missed interceptions" due to expired information lies with the rights holder. A single enterprise can file multiple rights (trademarks, patents, copyrights) separately to form a combined defense line. In cross-border e-commerce scenarios, filing information also supports data verification between e-commerce platforms and customs, with the depth of the defense line expanding as rights combinations increase. The fourth layer highlights linkage with offline rights protection: the value of port interceptions extends beyond seizing one container—customs investigations into infringers and goods flow provide intelligence for offline anti-counterfeiting efforts. Administrative enforcement records become evidence for civil litigation and criminal reporting (the customs' administrative penalty decision serves as proof of infringement facts and scale). A mature brand protection strategy combines "customs filing to intercept exports + offline notarized purchases to fix evidence + layered advancement of civil claims and criminal prosecutions", all sharing a common rights foundation to reduce protection costs and amplify deterrence effects.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to sort out the list of core trademarks, patents, and copyrights and handle the registration with the General Administration of Customs; the second step is to establish a mechanism for maintaining rights dynamics (synchronous updates of renewal, licensing, and changes); the third step is to apply for customs detention after discovering clues and cooperate with the guarantee process; the fourth step is to convert the customs investigation records into evidence chains for civil and criminal protection. The main legal basis: relevant provisions of the "Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property of the People's Republic of China", Article 44 of the "Customs Law of the People's Republic of China", and protection provisions of the Trademark Law, Patent Law, and Copyright Law; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

There are three key points regarding customs registration: 1. Registration designates companies as "duty sentinels" at ports nationwide, with a 10-year validity period and minimal cost. 2. Customs authorities proactively intercept goods based on their authority or upon requests from companies, with foreign trade enterprises preferring the former option. 3. Port records help offline anti-counterfeiting efforts, forming a three-pronged approach to protecting intellectual property rights. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. For matters involving intellectual property customs protection, please contact us via the following channels:Intellectual property protection and corporate lawWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which can be integrated with cross-border trade compliance.\nFinancial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesFor reference, you can review the sections related to contract and authorization system reviewBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor any questions regarding difficult situations, please feel free to consult us.Special servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the customs seize the goods if there's no filing?

It can be detained upon request, but the applicant must independently discover clues, provide guarantees, and provide evidence; after filing, the applicant can enjoy proactive protection by the customs authorities on their own initiative.

Q2: How long is the validity period of the filing?

The validity period of the filing is ten years, and the rights can be renewed. Any changes to the rights should be updated in the filing information in a timely manner.

Q3: Are the filing fees high?

The cost of filing a record is extremely low in itself. Each right only needs to be filed once to cover all ports across the country, making it one of the most cost-effective tools for intellectual property planning.

Q4: Do I have to compensate if I miscount the goods?

If the right holder applies for the detention of the wrong goods or causes losses to the detained person due to insufficient guarantees, he/she shall bear the compensation liability in accordance with the law. Before applying for detention, a comparison of the infringement must be conducted to ensure its accuracy.

Q5: What is the use of the records of customs inspections?

The administrative punishment decision can prove the facts and scale of the infringement, and can be directly used in subsequent civil litigation and criminal reporting.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situations.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.