Under international law, the court did the right thing in ordering the destruction of 5,000 pairs of counterfeit Nike trainers.

The case involves a consignment of shoes that reached Malta by container, with CMA CGM Samson docking at the freeport on 18 January. Customs officials who discovered the 5,130 pairs of Nike shoes suspected them to be fake as indeed they were confirmed to be in a report by Elena Pigozzi, Nike brand protection manager.

The manufacturing company, Al-Baraka d’Algerie Agence, of Algeria, was sued, together with the China-based company responsible for bringing them into Malta. The shoes are to be destroyed within 90 days.

The Algerian company was ordered to pay the costs for the transport, storage and destruction of the shoes, and for Customs’ role in the case.

Only two days ago, we published a leading article on the issue of supply, demand, advertising and waste. We said that most of the items consumed in the West are produced in third-world countries. The raw materials used in the manufacturing process are also extracted there and the people who put together cheap, synthetic goods are paid a pittance, while the Western consumer pays a fraction of the real cost of the item. If the world’s trade was actually fair, we would not even be able to afford a tenth of what we enjoy today… examples are coffee, jewellery, information technology and many, many more.

Let us look at the conundrum in more detail. If a customer in Malta buys a shirt, what does it actually involve – given the bigger picture? We had also pointed out that production of goods involves extraction, manufacture, payment of workers, the cost of transport and the environmental price. Once we have bought an item, the concepts of perceived and planned obsolescence kick in, it goes ‘out of fashion’ and within a couple of years we have to buy a new one because it is designed to fail, or cannot be upgraded.

We had gone off on the economic tack, but this time, we will speak about the potential use of those goods. Aside from the above mentioned extraction, etc, there is also the simple matter of these being perfectly good shoes that are going to waste.

We will ask the question: What does the court-ordered destruction comprise of? Are the items disassembled and sent for recycling? Are they burnt? Are they sold off? Are they given back to the manufacturer?

We know that the court was perfectly correct in its interpretation and execution of the law, but perhaps it is time that the laws changed. We have a better idea – a more moral one that also enforces the maxims of crime does not pay and the polluter pays principle. What if Nike also got its way? What if the law were to stipulate that the (counterfeit) manufacturer had pay for the removal of the swoosh from the item, and that the transport company pay for their shipment to, Sudan, for example, where they are needed? What if the manufacturer was to be ordered to double the delivery? That would be a lot more just all-round. It would be morally and ecologically correct. It all sounds so easy. But it isn’t. In reality, such a simple law would have to be decreed at international level. Then it would be subject to approval of blocs such as the EU and the US and other free trade areas. Then it would go down to national level.

The hierarchy of things is never simple. It’s a nice thought, but that’s as far as it can go.