Thank you! Your submission has been received. We will get in touch with you soon.
Back to site
Brands lose digital control daily. Discover how fragmented visibility fuels counterfeiting and trust erosion — and what anticipatory intelligence changes.
A CMO at a global brand.
An intellectual property attorney.
Two profiles that rarely sit at the same table.
When Smart Protection interviewed them to explore how brands really exist on the internet, no one expected what happened.
They did not describe three different problems.
They described the same problem from completely different angles.
And, without intending to, both conversations pointed to the same reality:
Very few organizations have a complete view of what is happening to their brand outside the channels they control.
Marketing sees one part.
Legal sees another.
Brand Protection sees yet another.
And it is precisely in those spaces where many threats go unnoticed until the damage is already visible.
Eduardo Valladolid knows what it means to manage a global brand under constant pressure.
As CMO of Pizza Hut Mexico, he knows firsthand the gap between what a brand controls and what is actually happening in the digital ecosystem.
“Day-to-day demands consume you, and many times you simply do not have the capacity to keep all the metrics clear,” he admits.
It is not a lack of talent.
It is not a lack of resources.
It is a structural problem that affects almost every organization:
brands control their owned channels, but not the parallel ecosystem around them.
And that parallel ecosystem is where counterfeits, unauthorized sellers, fraudulent ads, and cloned websites live.
At a previous company, Eduardo experienced fraud up close that represented 4% of total sales.
Handled manually.
Reactively.
Without real visibility.
Ana Padial, partner and head of Trademarks and Patents at SOL MUNTAÑOLA, works every day with the legal dimension of this problem.
And what she describes reveals how much the infringer’s modus operandi has changed.
“The infringer is sitting at home with a computer; they do not even need to rent a storefront,” she explains.
Product from China.
Made-to-order operations.
No detectable physical infrastructure.
This not only changes the scale of the problem.
It completely changes the nature of legal evidence.
Because when there is no warehouse, there is no raid.
When there is no raid, there is no physical evidence.
And when there is no physical evidence, organizations are left trying to build legal cases on fragmented digital traces that no one has systematically organized.
Ana’s conclusion is direct:
“There is nothing more dangerous than not knowing.”
Not the infringer.
Not the counterfeit.
The lack of knowledge about who is attacking and exploiting your brand.
For Javier Capilla, founder and CEO of Smart Protection, listening to these two conversations was especially revealing.
Because digital threats are no longer a marketing problem, or a legal problem, or a brand protection problem.
They are a visibility problem.
And when each team sees only one part of the ecosystem, organizations react too late.
Marketing focuses on protecting brand reputation and maintaining customer trust.
Brand Protection teams prioritize detecting and removing infringements.
Legal focuses its efforts on taking action against infringers and those who improperly profit from the brand.
And too often, that information never gets connected.
The result is an organization with a lot of information and very little integrated visibility.
One that has tools, but not cross-functional intelligence.
One that reacts when the damage is already visible, not when the threat begins to build.
Smart Protection processes more than 12,000 infringements daily, has blocked more than 80 million threats, and protects more than 3,000 brands across more than 30 countries.
With a threat removal success rate above 95%.
But the most important lesson is not technological.
It is organizational:
the greatest risk to a brand is not the threat itself.
It is failing to see it until it has already caused damage.
The landscape has evolved in ways that many organizations still have not fully processed.
Counterfeiters no longer need physical infrastructure.
Digital distribution has shifted from being a sales channel to becoming a surface of commercial risk.
And the traditional ROI based on takedowns is beginning to show its limits.
Because the real indicator is not how many infringements are removed.
It is how much demand is being diverted.
It is how many customers have a bad experience without the brand ever knowing.
One bad customer experience gets amplified to between 29 and 36 people through negative word of mouth.
That is not a brand protection metric.
That is a business metric.
The industry needs a change in the conversation.
From reactive removal to anticipatory intelligence.
From functional silos to cross-functional visibility.
From measuring volume of actions to measuring impact on revenue, trust, and control.
And that change begins with a question that none of the three conversations could answer satisfactorily:
Who in your organization has a complete view of everything happening to your brand outside your controlled channels?
Not marketing.
Not legal.
Not brand protection.
Who sees it all?
Si quieres, también puedo hacer una versión más pulida y editorial en inglés, para que suene más natural en un artículo o LinkedIn post.
.webp)
