Emmanuel Gillet

European Commission 2022 report on online counterfeiting

Since 2018, the European Commission has published a biennial Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List based on submissions from rights holders and platform intermediaries; the article reviews the 2022 edition (published 1 December 2022). The picture is contrasted. Some platforms — Mercado Libre, Snapdeal, Bukalapak — show real progress, with brand-protection portals and structured notice-and-takedown procedures. Others, from Shopee and DHGate to Tiu.ru, Deal.by, Satu.kz and Tokopedia, remain problematic: few proactive measures, cumbersome reporting systems, weak cooperation with rights holders. Rapporteurs also note that counterfeits remain plentiful on Alibaba, Amazon and Meta. The report devotes particular attention to counterfeit medicines, distributed mainly through .COM domains, and touches on the emerging risks of the metaverse. The article reads the Watch List alongside the EU's broader arsenal — the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding, Recommendation (EU) 2018/334, and the Digital Services Act.

Read the article on IPTwins ↗︎

Read next

Fendi v Rolo Fashion: Assessing Damages When Counterfeit Sales Do Not Translate into Lost Sales

Establishing infringement and pricing it are two very different exercises. In Fendi Italia Srl & Ors v Rolo Fashion Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 1703 (IPEC), four LVMH houses had already obtained judgment in default on liability; what remained was the assessment of damages for the online sale of counterfeit luxury goods. HHJ Hacon refused to treat the quality of “superfakes” as proof of substitution, rebuilt the scale of the trading from incomplete disclosure, and settled on 4,752 sales, a substitution rate of 15% and £200,000 of lost profit. For the remaining 4,039 transactions he applied the user principle, held the hypothetical royalty available in trade mark cases and set it at a “bare minimum” of 3%; reputational harm was rejected for want of evidence. This article reads the judgment against Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 and asks what online monitoring must preserve if a loss is later to be proved.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law

19 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

When the Lion Saves the Panther from Counterfeiting: Anatomy of a Fraudulent Online Store and the Evolution of Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is no longer limited to the opportunistic registration of a domain name. In WIPO Case No. D2026-1806, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios obtained the transfer of pinkpanthershop.com, a domain operating a fully-fledged fraudulent online store built around the Pink Panther brand: polished visual identity, seamless purchasing journey, legal notices and a false sense of legitimacy. This article dissects the anatomy of such fraudulent ecosystems and the technical and legal indicators that reveal them, from warehouse locations to privacy shields. It also revisits the role of disclaimers in UDRP proceedings — including the Oki Data criteria — and shows why bad faith must be assessed in context. A telling illustration of how online brand protection has shifted from defending names to dismantling infrastructures.

Counterfeiting · Cybersquatting · UDRP

22 July 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Third-Party Liability

Lacoste v Shein: When a Platform Can No Longer Hide Behind Hosting Status

A platform is not one legal object. In Lacoste v Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd. (Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 July 2026, RG 25/12454), the Court of Appeal refused to let the operators of shein.com shelter behind the hosting exemption of Article 6 of the Digital Services Act: goods “sold by Shein”, Shein labels and packaging, and the Commission’s designation of the service as a very large online platform revealed a hybrid activity, and the characterisation attached not to the platform as a whole but to the role actually played in the disputed transactions. The judgment reaches beyond the twenty offending products. “Lacoste”, typed into the internal search engine, infringes the word marks; “crocodile”, a free word, grounds unfair competition and parasitism. Interim damages rise from €30,000 to €300,000 — the defendants’ own failure to disclose their turnover counting against them — and the measures run across the European Union.

Counterfeiting · Court Litigation · European Digital Law · Marketplace Enforcement · Trademark Law

28 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

Domain Name Law

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

Cybersquatting · Domain Name Law · Trademark Law · UDRP

23 August 2026

Initially published on iptwins.com

← All articles

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

9 December 2022

Jurisdiction

Topics

Counterfeiting · European Intellectual Property Law · Marketplace Enforcement

Industry

Pharmaceuticals, Retail & E-commerce

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.