- within Compliance topic(s)
Strategic framing: why orchestration matters
Brand enforcement has become more active and less effective at the same time. Takedown volumes have grown, border seizures have multiplied and platform cooperation has improved – yet the same counterfeiting networks resurface, the same sellers reappear under new identities and the same supply chains reconstitute within weeks. The problem is not a lack of tools. It is a lack of architecture.
Most global programmes are organised along regional lines – a US team manages platforms and litigation, a European team handles customs and injunctions, and an Asian team coordinates administrative raids. Each operates with genuine sophistication. However, because these efforts are rarely sequenced or governed as a system, the aggregate impact falls short of what the combined toolset should produce. Intelligence generated by US platform investigations is not routinely translated into EU customs targeting. European seizure data is not systematically fed back into US litigation strategy.
Counterfeiting networks are themselves architecturally sophisticated – geographically distributed, operationally resilient and institutionally adaptive. Meeting that architecture with fragmented regional responses is a structural mismatch. For global brand owners, impact is no longer driven by enforcement volume but by coordination, timing and governance.
The reason this matters in operational terms is that modern counterfeiting networks have priced standardised enforcement measures into their business models. A typical marketplace seller assumes a baseline volume of takedowns per month as ordinary operational friction, comparable to shipping losses or platform fees. Customs seizures along a single corridor are absorbed by rerouting. Default judgments against shell entities are unenforceable by design. As long as enforcement operates in piecemeal mode, it is part of the infringer’s cost structure rather than a threat to their business model.
The threshold at which enforcement becomes genuinely disruptive is profile formation: when the identity of the economic actor behind rotating storefronts, seller IDs and shipping addresses becomes reconstructible. That reconstruction is by definition a cross-channel, cross-jurisdictional task because the infringer is fragmented across channels and jurisdictions by construction. The fundamental unit of effective anti-counterfeiting work is therefore not the listing, storefront or even the seller. It is the network profile. Programmes that optimise at the first three levels are optimising at the wrong level of abstraction.
Regional toolkits
United States: platform intelligence and strategic escalation
The US enforcement model is heavily platform driven, built on notice-and-takedown procedures developed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act framework and the contributory liability principles established in Tiffany (NJ) v eBay.1 Amazon, eBay, Temu, Shein and other major marketplaces have developed sophisticated brand protection programmes enabling rights holders to report and remove infringing listings at scale.
However, the strategic value of these systems lies less in individual listing removal than in the intelligence they generate. Marketplace cooperation gives brand owners access to seller data, transactional records and behavioural patterns that illuminate counterfeiting network structures – identifying repeat infringers, tracing supply-chain connections and mapping the organisational architecture behind the goods. Where European enforcement excels at immediate market disruption, US platform investigations excel at exposing the network behind the disruption.
This intelligence is amplified by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforcement. Rights holders can record their trademarks and copyrights through CBP’s IP rights e-recordation system, after which CBP officers may detain and seize suspected counterfeit goods ex officio at ports of entry without requiring the rights holder to initiate proceedings or post bonds. The resulting seizure records (ie, consignees, country of origin and routing data) enrich the broader intelligence picture available for platform investigations and EU customs coordination.
Platform takedowns and CBP seizures, however, often fail to deter persistent infringers. Sophisticated counterfeiting operations treat listing removals as a cost of doing business, reopening under new identities or migrating to alternative platforms. Federal court litigation offers escalation pathways that impose more meaningful consequences: temporary restraining orders that freeze assets and disable payment processing, expedited discovery compelling platforms to disclose seller information and statutory damages awards up to US$2 million per infringed mark for wilful violations under the Lanham Act.
The “Schedule A” lawsuit, particularly prevalent in the Northern District of Illinois, has become a key instrument for targeting pseudonymous seller networks. These actions allow brand owners to sue dozens or hundreds of anonymous online sellers in a single consolidated complaint, with defendants listed on a confidential schedule to prevent asset flight before the court acts. The combination of immediate asset restraint with expedited discovery creates substantial settlement pressure, and most cases resolve through default judgments.
The strategic point is that US litigation outputs feed directly back into transatlantic enforcement. Discovery products – subpoenaed bank records, shipping manifests and supplier communications – generate the granular intelligence EU customs authorities need to refine their targeting. A default judgment establishing goods as counterfeit can accompany an updated application for action (AFA), strengthening detention requests at European ports. Court-ordered asset freezes may expose previously unknown EU-based corporate affiliates or logistics partners, enabling parallel civil actions in member states. US litigation is not merely an endpoint, it is a force multiplier for the European enforcement layer.
Europe: speed, reach and procedural leverage
European enforcement is defined by three structural characteristics that no other major enforcement system replicates in combination: geographic reach through a unified rights framework, procedural speed driven by front-loaded proceedings and an increasingly mature ecosystem connecting judicial, customs and platform mechanisms. For global brand owners, the EU layer is not merely a regional complement to US enforcement, it is the primary instrument for rapid market exclusion and supply-chain interdiction across 27 jurisdictions.
The EU trademark and unified rights architecture
A single EU trademark registration grants exclusive rights across all 27 member states. For enforcement purposes, this means that infringement actions can be brought before any EU trademark court and decisions – including preliminary and permanent injunctions – can carry EU-wide effect. A brand owner is not required to litigate 27 times to achieve 27 instances of relief. This structural feature alone makes Europe one of the most cost-efficient enforcement environments in the world for trademark owners, provided the litigation strategy is designed around it.
The EUIPO further reinforces the system through robust opposition and cancellation proceedings, allowing rights holders to challenge potentially infringing marks before they enter the register. Used proactively, opposition proceedings prevent conflicts at the registration stage and reduce the volume of downstream enforcement work – an often overlooked first line of defence.
Preliminary injunctions: speed as a strategic weapon
The most distinctive feature of European trademark enforcement is the availability of fast, decisive preliminary injunctive relief. Courts in several member states – France, Germany and the Netherlands most prominently – routinely grant ex parte preliminary injunctions within 24 to 72 hours where the infringement is documented and urgent. German courts, in particular, have developed a refined practice in which a properly prepared application can yield a trading prohibition served on importers, logistics operators and marketplace platforms before the infringer has any meaningful opportunity to adapt.
This procedural speed reflects a fundamentally different model from US litigation. European proceedings are front loaded: the evidentiary work is concentrated in the application itself, not deferred to discovery. There is no broad pre-trial document production, no extended motions practice and no jury. The court decides on the materials before it, and it decides quickly. For brand owners coming from a US enforcement background this requires a strategic reorientation, but the reward is access to the most rapid market-exclusion mechanism available in any major jurisdiction.
The injunction toolkit extends beyond prohibitions on direct infringers. European courts have developed a mature intermediary liability framework – rooted in the e-Commerce Directive and now reinforced by the Digital Services Act (DSA) – under which injunctions can be directed at warehouse operators, freight forwarders, fulfilment providers and online marketplaces that enable infringing activity. This is operationally significant: a single coordinated injunction package, served simultaneously on the importer, the logistics chain and the platform, can sever a counterfeit operation’s European supply line within days. Claims for recall and destruction of infringing goods from distribution channels reinforce the disruption by removing inventory already in transit or storage.
Customs enforcement under Regulation 608/2013
EU customs enforcement is a single-application, multi-jurisdictional instrument. An AFA filed in one member state activates detention powers across all 27, making the EU one of the most efficient customs enforcement environments globally for any rights holder willing to invest in a well-prepared AFA.
The effectiveness of the AFA mechanism scales directly with the intelligence behind it, which is where transatlantic coordination becomes decisive. Seller identities, fulfilment centre locations, consignee patterns and shipping routes obtained through US platform investigations or discovery translate directly into targeting parameters that European customs authorities can act on. A well-resourced AFA, updated continuously with intelligence from parallel US and Asian proceedings, can convert European ports (eg, Antwerp, Hamburg, Piraeus and Rotterdam) into strategic interception points that disrupt counterfeit flows before goods enter European commerce.
Customs detention generates two distinct value streams. The first is direct: infringing goods are removed from commerce, and the simplified destruction procedure allows elimination without judicial proceedings where the declarant does not object within the prescribed timeframe. The second is evidentiary: every detention generates documentary records on the scale, origin and routing of counterfeit supply chains. That intelligence feeds back into platform investigations, civil proceedings and source-country administrative actions, closing the loop that purely reactive enforcement programmes never close.
Trade-fair seizures
Europe hosts many of the world’s largest industry exhibitions (eg, Ambiente, Bauma, IFA, ISPO and dozens of sector-specific fairs), where manufacturers, distributors and intermediaries from across global counterfeit networks converge in concentrated form. These events present a unique enforcement opportunity. Rights holders can obtain swift seizure orders that halt the display and distribution of infringing goods and produce comprehensive evidentiary records: promotional materials, business cards, supplier contact details, distribution agreements and brochures that often expose entire counterfeiting networks operating beyond the fair itself.
Trade-fair seizures combine immediate disruption with intelligence gathering of a kind rarely available through routine enforcement channels. The public nature of these actions also generates significant deterrent effect, signalling to potential infringers that brand owners will act visibly and decisively when the opportunity arises.
Online enforcement and the DSA
European online enforcement has matured significantly since the DSA became fully applicable in February 2024. The DSA materially strengthens the framework that previously rested on the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour provisions, replacing voluntary cooperation with affirmative platform obligations.
Three DSA features are operationally significant for brand owners. First, “very large online platforms” and “very large online search engines” are subject to enhanced due diligence obligations, mandatory risk assessments covering the distribution of counterfeit goods and periodic external audits. Second, trusted flagger status – available to qualified rights holder organisations – provides a streamlined escalation pathway that bypasses the standard notice-and-takedown queue and requires platform response within defined timeframes. Third, the DSA’s traceability requirements, which obligate platforms to verify the identity of business sellers, are progressively improving the quality of seller data available to rights holders and enforcement authorities.
Crucially, the DSA targets the revolving-door dynamic that has historically undermined online enforcement. Platforms must now implement proportionate technical and organisational measures to prevent recurrence by previously identified infringers – replacing single-listing removal with a structural obligation to disrupt repeat behaviour. For brand owners, this shifts the focus of online enforcement from volume metrics to network-level outcomes.
European online enforcement is also increasingly integrated with judicial and customs action. Courts have shown willingness to issue disclosure orders requiring platforms to reveal seller-identity information as part of preliminary injunction proceedings, allowing brand owners to connect online enforcement with customs targeting on a coordinated timeline. This integration – judicial disclosure orders, customs AFAs, platform notices and trusted flagger escalation operating as a single sequenced system – represents the most sophisticated form of online enforcement currently available in any major jurisdiction.
The European layer in context
European enforcement excels at speed, geographic reach and supply-chain interdiction. It is the layer of the global architecture best suited to immediate market disruption, converting intelligence generated elsewhere into operational consequences for counterfeiting networks. Its outputs (eg, seizure records, disclosure orders and injunctions) are also among the most actionable inputs available for subsequent US litigation and Asian administrative enforcement. For global brand owners, the question is rarely whether to use European enforcement, but whether the European layer is being used as the high-leverage instrument it can be rather than as a regional silo operating in parallel to everything else.
Asia-Pacific region: manufacturing hubs and administrative enforcement
Asian enforcement is centred on administrative actions and customs controls at manufacturing and export hubs – addressing counterfeiting at its source and complementing the platform-driven US model and the injunctive mechanisms of Europe. The upstream positioning makes Asia indispensable to any coordinated global architecture, though practical effectiveness varies substantially across jurisdictions and depends heavily on local execution.
Chinafunctions simultaneously as the largest source of counterfeit goods and as a jurisdiction with increasingly sophisticated enforcement mechanisms. Its distinctive administrative enforcement system allows rights holders to petition the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR) to investigate alleged infringement and impose administrative sanctions, separate from civil and criminal enforcement and without judicial proceedings. Administrative actions are swifter and more cost effective than civil litigation and authorities have investigatory powers to conduct unannounced raids, seizing suspected counterfeit goods and manufacturing equipment. The limitations are well known: administrative authorities cannot award damages (only fines and injunctive orders), are reluctant to act on goods that are merely similar rather than identical to registered marks and produce enforcement orders limited to the relevant authority’s jurisdiction.
China also operates a recordal system through the General Administration of Customs. Once a right is recorded, Customs officers temporarily seize suspected infringing goods for verification by the rights holder. Where infringement is confirmed, administrative fines are imposed and the goods are destroyed; serious cases are referred to public security authorities. The information obtained through Customs seizures – consignees, routing data and supplier identities – supports targeted enforcement against upstream and downstream actors in the supply chain.
South-east Asiapresents a fragmented landscape with significant manufacturing and distribution infrastructure feeding global counterfeit flows. Traditional wholesale markets in Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Manila continue to function as distribution nodes, while platforms such as Shopee and Tokopedia have been flagged by the European Commission for high volumes of infringing goods – though Shopee has shown measurable improvement following its 2024 Test Purchase Program. Enforcement effectiveness varies markedly: identifying targets for civil proceedings is difficult given the diffuse network structure, and litigation costs frequently exceed likely recoveries.
Border control through customs detention is generally the most effective intervention point in the region. Recordal systems are available in Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, while Singapore empowers its Customs to seize infringing goods ex officio or upon request, subject to limitations on goods in transit. Effective enforcement requires a jurisdiction-specific strategy: each market presents a distinct balance of opportunities and constraints, and resources should be allocated to mechanisms where return on investment is highest.
Across Asia, enforcement frameworks are not harmonised – a fragmentation that counterfeit networks readily exploit. Source-focused enforcement nevertheless plays a pivotal role in disrupting production at origin, particularly as Chinese and Korean authorities deploy AI-powered inspection systems and expand cross-border e-commerce monitoring. For global brand owners, the Asian layer is most effective when integrated with US and European actions through a shared intelligence picture, rather than operated as a parallel regional programme.
Orchestrating global action for maximum impact
Coordinated enforcement begins with a shared intelligence picture that aggregates US platform data, EU customs records and Asian administrative outcomes into a single operational view. That picture enables sequencing – the most important element of any global campaign. Investigative actions should precede disruptive ones so that raids, injunctions and asset freezes are informed by the most complete network map available. Simultaneous multi-jurisdictional action on an enforcement day – Customs detention in Rotterdam, a Schedule A temporary restraining order in Chicago, an AMR raid in Guangzhou, a preliminary injunction served on a German fulfilment operator – imposes costs that no single-jurisdiction measure can replicate.
Asian, EU and US tools offer complementary leverage profiles. US enforcement excels at intelligence accumulation, asset restraint and monetary exposure. European enforcement excels at speed, market exclusion and supply-chain interdiction. Asian enforcement excels at source disruption and upstream supply-chain attack. Each layer should generate standard outputs for the others:
- US platform investigations should routinely produce EU AFA inputs and Asian administrative complaint targets;
- EU customs seizures should routinely feed US litigation targeting and Chinese Customs notifications; and
- Asian raid outcomes should inform US asset-restraint applications and European intermediary actions.
Generative AI is reshaping the counterfeit economy on both sides of the enforcement line, and the asymmetry it produces reinforces rather than weakens the case for architectural coordination.
On the offensive side, counterfeit operations are already deploying generative AI operationally. Product images are produced synthetically, so a counterfeit can be listed across multiple marketplaces before any physical inventory exists. Listing copy is localised into dozens of languages automatically, removing what used to be a meaningful market-entry friction. Review volumes are generated at scale with stylistic variation that increasingly defeats human and automated detection alike. Synthetic seller identities – AI-generated identification documents, proof-of-address records and business registration paperwork – accelerate re-onboarding after account terminations. The operational cost of standing up a new infringing storefront has fallen by an order of magnitude in the past two years.
On the defensive side, marketplace operators and customs authorities are deploying AI in parallel: image hashing and logo detection at scale, anomaly detection in seller behaviour, semantic clustering of listings across storefronts and platforms. Chinese Customs and the Korean IP Office have publicly committed to AI-driven inspection systems and major platforms now run brand protection programmes in which automated detection precedes human review.
The strategic implication is not that AI is a new enforcement topic in its own right. It is that AI accelerates the underlying asymmetry between architecturally integrated and fragmented enforcement programmes. AI applied to a regionally siloed dataset is structurally weaker than AI applied to an integrated global dataset because pattern recognition across jurisdictions, channels and timeframes is precisely where machine learning produces its largest gains. A brand owner whose US platform data, EU customs records and Asian administrative outputs sit in separate systems is leaving the most valuable detection capability unused. A brand owner that has invested in a common operational data layer – shared seller identifiers, image hashes, payment patterns and shipping signatures across regions – converts every additional enforcement action into an input that strengthens detection across the entire network.
In 2026, investment in shared enforcement data architecture is no longer an optional efficiency measure. It is a precondition for AI-assisted enforcement to function at all against networks that are themselves AI-enabled.
The risk of uncoordinated action is equally important to understand. A publicly filed US complaint can alert affiliated parties before European detention orders are in place. A premature injunction application can create adverse precedent. A takedown campaign that removes listings before the seller network is identified eliminates the evidentiary trail needed to escalate. Cross-jurisdictional governance – shared decision gates, explicit communication protocols, defined escalation criteria – is the structural solution.
Key considerations for global brand owners
Three programme-design decisions most reliably determine whether a global enforcement architecture produces compounding impact or merely generates activity:
- Govern enforcement as a system– establish a coordinating function, in-house or through lead counsel, with cross-jurisdictional visibility and authority to set priorities and approve significant actions. Intelligence generated in one jurisdiction should flow automatically to all others as an operational requirement, not an ad hoc courtesy.
- Treat online enforcement as an escalation chain, not a standalone solution – listing identification should trigger seller profiling, seller profiling should trigger account mapping and AFA submission, AFA submission should trigger asset restraint and judicial disclosure, and disclosure should trigger source-country administrative enforcement. Each step is triggered by the intelligence output of the previous one. Programmes optimised for removal volume rather than escalation logic will generate activity without impact.
- Build decision-making structures that match the problem – clarify which targets merit escalated investment, who has authority to authorise cross-jurisdictional action and how outcomes will be measured, as impact metrics (network disruption, recurrence rate) rather than activity metrics (takedowns filed, goods seized). Counterfeiting networks make deliberate strategic decisions. Effective enforcement programmes must match that deliberation.
Footnote
1. 600 F.3d 93, Second Circuit, 2010.
Originally published by World Trademark Review.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.
© Copyright 2026. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
[View Source]
