A shipment of counterfeit goods bearing your brand’s mark clears the border and reaches Kenyan shelves before you even know it exists. For brand owners operating in Kenya, the Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) is the frontline institution designed to prevent exactly this, and understanding how it operates, and how to actually engage it, is essential to making the Anti-Counterfeit Act work for your business rather than remaining a piece of legislation you have never had reason to use.

What the ACA is and where it sits

The Anti-Counterfeit Authority was established under the Anti-Counterfeit Act, No. 13 of 2008, which came into force on 1 July 2009; the Authority itself became operational in June 2010. It was originally called the Anti-Counterfeit Agency, renamed to the Anti-Counterfeit Authority through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act of 2018, which also expanded its powers. The ACA is a state corporation operating under the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry, working alongside customs, police, and other enforcement agencies rather than replacing them.

What the Authority is actually empowered to do

The Act gives the ACA a broad mandate: enlightening the public on counterfeiting, combating trade and dealings in counterfeit goods, running training programmes, and coordinating with national, regional, and international bodies fighting counterfeiting. Behind that general mandate sit concrete powers. ACA-appointed inspectors can enter premises where an offence under the Act is suspected, provided they hold the appropriate warrant, investigate counterfeiting-related offences even where the specific offence is not defined under the Act itself, and exercise powers similar to customs officers in relation to importation under the East African Community Customs Management Act. Inspectors can seize and, ultimately, destroy counterfeit goods, and the Act sets out specific duties an inspector must follow on seizure, along with rules on storage of and access to seized goods pending resolution.

Section 32 of the Act makes it a criminal offence to possess, control, manufacture, produce, make, sell, hire out, barter, or expose for trade any counterfeit goods. Since the 2018 amendments, the ACA’s reach also extends to intellectual property rights that exist outside Kenya, not only those registered locally, which matters for international brand owners who have not yet completed Kenyan registration but still face counterfeiting of their marks in the Kenyan market. Where a court finds that a person obtained a monetary benefit from dealing in counterfeit goods, that benefit can now be redirected to the Authority’s own funds rather than simply forfeited, giving the ACA a direct financial stake in successful enforcement.

What offenders actually face

Beyond the general enforcement powers described above, it is worth being clear with clients about what a Section 32 offence actually exposes an infringer to. The Act treats dealing in counterfeit goods as a criminal matter, not merely a civil dispute between competing traders, meaning the ACA’s involvement can lead to prosecution rather than only seizure and destruction of goods. This is a meaningfully different exposure than a straightforward trademark infringement claim in the civil courts, and it is one reason brand owners increasingly treat an ACA complaint as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, civil enforcement action against a persistent infringer.

How a brand owner actually engages the ACA

Consumers and rights holders can lodge complaints directly with the Authority, which investigates through its inspectorate. For an ongoing brand protection strategy rather than a one-off complaint, the more important tool is the recordation system introduced by Section 34B of the Act, covered in more detail in our companion article on customs recordation. In short, recording a trademark, and in principle other forms of intellectual property, with the ACA before importing goods gives the Authority the information it needs to identify and intercept counterfeit shipments at the border rather than after they have already reached the market.

What this means in practice for a brand owner

The ACA reports that the large majority of IP-infringing products found in Kenya, roughly 80 percent by the Authority’s own figures, arrive through importation rather than local manufacture. That statistic is the practical justification for why recordation, engaging with inspectors, and border-focused enforcement tend to deliver more value than waiting to act against counterfeit goods once they are already circulating domestically. A brand owner that has recorded its marks with the ACA, cooperates with inspectors when goods are seized, and maintains a working relationship with the Authority is in a materially stronger position than one relying solely on after-the-fact litigation against individual infringers.

How We Can Help

Clay & Associates Advocates advises brand owners on engaging the Anti-Counterfeit Authority, from lodging complaints and supporting inspector-led seizures to building a broader anti-counterfeiting strategy around ACA recordation. Contact our Intellectual Property team to discuss protecting your brand against counterfeit goods in Kenya.

Sources: Anti-Counterfeit Act, No. 13 of 2008 (Revised Edition 2018), sections 32 and 34B; Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act, 2018; ACA Vision, Mission and Mandate (aca.go.ke). If the infringement you are facing extends beyond the ACA’s remit, see our overview of the full brand owner’s enforcement ladder in Kenya.

Frequently asked questions

Does the ACA only act on registered Kenyan trademarks?
No. Since the 2018 amendments, the Authority’s mandate extends to intellectual property rights that exist outside Kenya as well, not only those registered locally.

Can ACA inspectors seize counterfeit goods without a court order?
Inspectors can seize goods as part of their statutory powers, though entering premises requires an appropriate warrant, and the Act sets out specific procedures they must follow once goods are seized.

Is engaging the ACA a substitute for registering my trademark with KIPI?
No. ACA enforcement works alongside, not instead of, trademark registration; recordation with the ACA generally depends on already holding a certificate of registration for the relevant intellectual property right.

What happens to counterfeiters’ profits if a case succeeds?
Where a court finds a monetary benefit was obtained from dealing in counterfeit goods, that benefit can be redirected to the Authority’s own funds rather than simply forfeited to the state generally.