📷 Asia Post (AP) and Daily Waadaa (DW)
The recent emergence of two new Bangladeshi media outlets, Asia Post (AP) and The Daily Waadaa (DW), has sparked debate across the country’s media landscape. Much of the discussion has centered on politics, editorial positioning, and the professional backgrounds of those leading the organizations.
Yet a more interesting question lies beneath the surface. Why do Bangladeshi businesses, media startups, and entrepreneurs repeatedly adopt names, acronyms, logos, and visual identities that closely resemble internationally recognized brands?
The debate surrounding AP and DW is not merely about two newly launched publications. It highlights a broader cultural and institutional phenomenon that has existed in Bangladesh for decades: the normalization of imitation as a business strategy.
Across the country, examples are easy to find. If a sweet shop named Moronchand Mishtanna Bhandar becomes commercially successful in a particular town, another shop named New Moronchand Mishtanna Bhandar often appears nearby.
The difference between the two brands may be so subtle that customers fail to notice it at first glance. The same pattern extends far beyond neighborhood businesses.
Long before Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) officially entered Bangladesh through Transcom Foods Limited in September 2006, Fortuna Fried Chicken (FFC), a subsidiary of one of Bangladesh’s largest conglomerates, had already established a presence in the market.
Similar examples can be found throughout the retail, hospitality, food, education, and service sectors.
In the media industry, perhaps the most notable example was CNN Bangla. This Dhaka-based news platform used both the name and visual identity of the US-based television channel Cable News Network (CNN). In November 2022, a Dhaka court issued an injunction against its operations.
To many Bangladeshis, such practices may appear harmless. Some regard them as clever marketing. Others see them as a shortcut to recognition in an intensely competitive market. Internationally, however, the issue is viewed through a very different lens.
In modern economies, brands are not merely names or logos. They are valuable forms of intellectual property representing years, often decades, of investment, reputation-building, and accumulated consumer trust.
As a result, the unauthorized use of recognizable branding elements is frequently regarded as intellectual property infringement rather than entrepreneurial ingenuity. This distinction matters because intellectual property protection has become one of the key indicators of institutional credibility in the global economy.
Under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), member states are expected to provide effective protection for trademarks, including internationally recognized “well-known marks.”
International legal systems also recognize the doctrine of “passing off,” which prevents businesses from benefiting from the reputation and goodwill of established brands in ways that may mislead consumers.
The principle is simple: no company should be allowed to profit from consumer confusion. The importance of such protections extends beyond legal theory.
Organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have consistently argued that strong intellectual property regimes contribute to innovation, market competition, technological development, and foreign investment.
Weak enforcement, by contrast, often creates perceptions of legal uncertainty and commercial risk. It has direct implications for countries like Bangladesh.
Foreign direct investors evaluate far more than labor costs, tax incentives, or infrastructure. They also assess whether commercial assets, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and proprietary technologies, can be adequately protected.
When businesses can freely imitate recognizable brands without meaningful consequences, investors may reasonably question whether other forms of commercial property will receive effective legal protection.
For multinational corporations, such concerns are far from theoretical. Companies spend millions of dollars annually defending their brands. Apple has become famous for aggressively challenging businesses that use variations of its name, logo, or product identity.
Starbucks has pursued legal action against coffee shops whose branding it believes may create consumer confusion. Similar disputes occur regularly across industries and jurisdictions.
The objective is not simply to protect logos. It is to protect consumer trust. Brand recognition is one of the most valuable assets a company possesses. If consumers become unable to distinguish between authentic and imitative brands, the economic value of that reputation begins to erode.
The controversy surrounding AP and DW should therefore be understood within this broader context. The issue is not whether either organization has committed a legal violation. Determining trademark infringement is ultimately the responsibility of courts and regulatory authorities.
Nor is the question whether AP and DW possess capable journalists or legitimate editorial ambitions. In fact, many observers have noted the professional credentials behind both ventures. These discussions are important.
However, they do not eliminate another question that many observers have raised: why do new organizations so often choose names, acronyms, or visual identities that invite comparisons with already established international brands?
That question becomes particularly relevant when considering the visual presentation of modern media organizations. In an age dominated by digital platforms, branding is no longer a secondary concern.
Logos, abbreviations, colors, typography, and visual design serve as immediate signals of credibility and recognition. Consequently, even when no legal infringement is established, branding decisions that evoke well-known international organizations inevitably attract scrutiny.
The phenomenon is not unique to Bangladesh. In Western markets, particularly in Europe, retailers such as Aldi and Lidl have built successful businesses around so-called “lookalike” products. These products often mimic aspects of mainstream brands through packaging design, colors, and visual cues while remaining legally distinct.
Whether such practices represent clever competition or problematic imitation remains the subject of ongoing legal disputes, academic research, and business-school case studies.
The difference, however, is that these activities generally occur within regulatory systems characterized by robust trademark enforcement and active litigation. The existence of strong enforcement mechanisms creates boundaries.
Bangladesh faces a different challenge. The problem is not necessarily the absence of laws. The country possesses trademark legislation and intellectual property regulations. The more significant issue is the perception that enforcement remains inconsistent and that imitation often carries limited practical consequences.
As a result, a culture has emerged in which borrowing recognition may appear easier than building recognition. This mindset may deliver short-term commercial advantages. Yet it can impose long-term costs.
Countries aspiring to become regional investment hubs increasingly compete on institutional trust. Investors seek predictable rules, reliable enforcement, and confidence that their intellectual property will be protected.
A business environment associated with weak intellectual property enforcement can undermine those objectives, regardless of how attractive other economic indicators may appear.
Bangladesh is currently seeking to attract greater foreign investment, diversify its economy, strengthen its technology sector, and prepare for a more competitive post-LDC future.
Achieving those goals will require more than economic growth. It will require strengthening the institutions that underpin market confidence. That includes intellectual property protection.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding AP and Daily Waadaa is not primarily about two media organizations. It is about a larger question confronting Bangladesh’s economic future.
Can the country move beyond a culture that often rewards imitation and embrace one that rewards originality, innovation, and brand creation? The answer may shape not only the future of Bangladesh’s media industry but also the credibility of its broader business environment in an increasingly interconnected global economy.
Why the West and Big Tech Must Answer for Bangladesh’s unrest?
The social media linking New York and Paris to the chaos in Dhaka.
Leave a Reply