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.

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.

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.

22 July 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Online Trademark Infringement: When the Corporate Veil Does Not Shield the Director

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (No. 25-14.170), designated for publication in the Bulletin and the Rapport, the Commercial Chamber of the French Court of Cassation clarified when the manager of an SARL may be held personally liable for trademark infringement committed through the company's e-commerce website. First, the civil court must determine whether the acts personally attributed to the manager constitute the intentional criminal offence of trademark infringement under Article L. 716-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code. If they do, the offence is misconduct separable from corporate duties under Article L. 223-22 of the Commercial Code, and no prior criminal conviction is needed. Second, the manager's refusal to ensure compliance with a court order requiring the company to produce accounting and commercial documents is itself separable misconduct, even though the order was addressed to the company and not to him. Rights holders thus have two independent routes to the director's personal liability.

26 October 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Rush and Distribution: A Sector Map of the 2026 Reveal Day

On 7 October 2026, ICANN published the applications filed in the first new gTLD round since 2012: 1,614 primary applications for 986 distinct strings, submitted by 480 entities. That is fewer than in 2012 (1,930 applications for 1,409 strings), with evaluation fees now at USD 227,000, but the round is more contested: 55% of applications face a competitor, against 39% in 2012. Assigning each string to a sector reveals a demand driven by digital technology. Artificial intelligence is the most fiercely disputed sector, with .AGENT drawing thirteen applicants, and the leading AI companies have secured their own names. Brands have responded with restraint: 333 .BRAND applications, one in five, only nine of them French. Geographic names, so prominent in 2012, have almost disappeared, while niches such as health and the professions are emerging, including a community application for .AVOCAT. For trademark owners, the priority is to screen the list before the objection period opens on 17 November 2026.

9 October 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

9 December 2022

Jurisdiction

Related Decision(s)

Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions