Private and public evidence inputs to police case selection
Ashiko rightsholder and enforcement referrers
This collective covers rights holders, brand representatives, trade bodies and enforcement partners supplying evidence or intelligence for intellectual-property enforcement. It is an input role, not a single organisation or an independent power to suspend domains.
Intake and selection
The historical PIPCU guide requires evidence and groundwork and distinguishes inference from established fact. Its six acceptance factors include remit, organised activity, safety and financial or reputational harm, ongoing conduct, asset recovery and prosecution prospects. From 11 August 2025, the IPO Intelligence Gateway replaced the old submission form for rights holders and enforcement partners. The older ten-working-day response aim is not established as a current Gateway rule.
Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) → Ashiko rightsholder and enforcement referrers
published evidence requirements and police refusal review
Historical guide gives six factors: remit; organised activity; public-safety danger and actual/anticipated financial loss or reputational harm; ongoing activity; asset recovery; prosecution prospects. Referrals require evidence/groundwork and separated inferences. Detective Inspector gives refusal reasons/alternatives;10workingdays is an aim with updates, not a current Gateway rule.
may provide intelligence and infringement evidence
2020-06-22 – 2020-06-22
Brands/enforcement sources supply evidence and may confirm infringement where necessary; police retains investigative and authorisation steps. No grant of independent private suspension authority.
Ashiko rightsholder and enforcement referrers → IPO Intelligence Gateway
are directed to the replacement professional intake
2025-08-12 – 2025-08-12
Announcement names rightsholders/enforcement partners and distinguishes public reporting through Trading Standards/Crimestoppers. The form and operational endpoint were not opened.
Ashiko rightsholder and enforcement referrers → PIPCU historical Steering Group
are named among participants agreeing broad priorities
Rightsholders and industry bodies have an actual reported remit contribution. No particular company vote, quorum, funding condition or authority to compel a case established.
Brands/enforcement sources supply evidence and may confirm infringement where necessary; police retains investigative and authorisation steps. No grant of independent private suspension authority.
Announcement names rightsholders/enforcement partners and distinguishes public reporting through Trading Standards/Crimestoppers. The form and operational endpoint were not opened.
Rightsholders and industry bodies have an actual reported remit contribution. No particular company vote, quorum, funding condition or authority to compel a case established.
Historical guide gives six factors: remit; organised activity; public-safety danger and actual/anticipated financial loss or reputational harm; ongoing activity; asset recovery; prosecution prospects. Referrals require evidence/groundwork and separated inferences. Detective Inspector gives refusal reasons/alternatives;10workingdays is an aim with updates, not a current Gateway rule.