A 167 percent increase in the value of seized goods in just one year, followed by a doubling of the scale of violations in the next six months, is not a statistical anomaly. Nor is this, contrary to the optimism of authorities, merely evidence of the increasing accuracy of the Polish National Revenue Administration’s analytical algorithms. These results demonstrate the structural helplessness of the European market in the face of a phenomenon that has evolved from a niche practice into a cross-border sector of the digital economy.
The two billion Polish zlotys worth of goods disclosed by the National Revenue Administration in the last five years, and the almost half a trillion dollars worth of goods traded globally are just the tip of the iceberg. It is difficult to grasp the full scale of how many products have been delivered directly to the homes of millions of Europeans.
Many technological myths have emerged around the subject of counterfeits. Institutions and corporations are eager to divert attention to discussions about NFC tags, quantum dots, microprinting or digital product passports. This narrative conveniently suggests that we are facing a complex engineering problem for which a clever enough patent is all we need. The truth is more complicated. The problem does not lie in a lack of labelling technology, but rather in the economics and architecture of modern e-commerce, not to mention the widespread tacit acquiescence of the consumers themselves.
The Myth of the Unwitting Victim and the Triumph of the "Dupe" Culture
For decades, the fight against counterfeiting was based on the dogma of protecting deceived customers. Lawyers and marketing departments told a story of an unsuspecting citizen who bought a bottle of perfume, a handbag, or a pair of trainers in good faith, convinced that they were genuine. While there is an element of truth to this, in the context of 2026, this belief is outdated.
The modern consumer is not a victim, but an active participant in transactions, making informed, calculated choices. TikTok and Instagram generations have redefined the concept of prestige, replacing the cult of brand heritage with a phenomenon known as ‘dupe culture.’ Buying counterfeit goods is no longer considered shameful; it is a source of pride and a mark of consumer savvy, as well as a way of resisting the mark-ups imposed by large corporations through their marketing strategies. A fake Labubu plush toy, a ‘super-clone’ Swiss watch that’s almost indistinguishable from the original, or a cream from an Asian marketplace with ingredients that mimic those of a luxury serum all end up in the shopping basket because they offer the illusion of luxury and relatively good quality at 15 or 30 per cent of the original price. This is also clearly evident from the breakdown of the categories and the value of the goods seized. As recently as 2025, counterfeit clothing and footwear were responsible for the greatest financial losses. In contrast, in the first half of 2026, watches, jewellery and accessories accounted for almost two-thirds of the total disclosed value (153 million zlotys). Clothing, sports footwear, and excise goods followed closely behind. In terms of quantity, however, it was small consignments containing toys, cosmetics and cheap electronics that dominated.
While customs officials seized 6.6 million items of goods throughout 2025, this figure increased to over 13.5 million items in just six months of 2026, with only 650 cases being detected. This indicates a significant decrease in the average unit value of seized goods, suggesting a shift from a market dominated by more expensive counterfeits to one characterised by a flood of small items entering the country in millions of parcels.
This high demand is driven by declining purchasing power following years of inflation, social media algorithms that create short-lived micro-trends, and the perception that traditional brands have betrayed their roots by compromising on quality, relieving consumers of any guilt when buying counterfeit goods.
When the Original Loses its Soul. A Crisis of Trust
To fully understand the reasons behind the growth of the counterfeit goods market, it is necessary to examine the evolution of the retail sector itself. When some traditional manufacturers compromise on quality in the pursuit of cost optimisation and under pressure to increase profit margins, it becomes more difficult for consumers to understand intellectual property protection.
When the production of branded goods (both high-end and mid-range) moves to the same Asian industrial centres where the grey market operates, it becomes harder for customers to identify authentic products. The use of cheaper raw materials or simpler technologies means that, to the untrained eye, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between goods from official distribution channels and skilfully made copies. If a product bearing a logo does not offer significantly greater durability, consumers will begin to perceive the profit margin as a charge for the logo itself, rather than for indisputable practical and aesthetic value.
The defence of industrial property rights cannot be based solely on legal provisions and legal action. Authentic craftsmanship, unique materials, seamless after-sales service, and above-average durability have always provided the strongest, natural defence against imitation - standards that cannot easily be replicated in low-budget production. Maintaining this quality gap is one of the most important elements of long-term protection for authorised brands’ portfolios today.
Logistics Trojan Horse
The logistics model for the retail sector has undergone a major and rapid transformation following the entry of large Asian e-commerce into the market. As the statistics show, this has made the existing border control mechanism completely obsolete.
The traditional import model relied on container ships. Thousands of items were shipped to Hamburg, Rotterdam, or Gdańsk. Seizing a single container would result in the confiscation of tens of thousands of counterfeit products, dealing a blow to the wholesaler. However, the emergence of direct-to-consumer platforms such as Temu, Shein and the revamped AliExpress has fragmented this massive flow into a vast number of small parcels.
Rather than dealing with a single container, customs officials now handle millions of small envelopes and bubble-wrapped parcels every day, each one addressed directly to a specific person. These services do not physically have the human resources or time to X-ray and verify even a fraction of this volume. Furthermore, for years, this model has exploited the EU’s ‘de minimis’ loophole (the exemption from customs duties for parcels worth less than 150 euros). Global e-commerce has created the ideal infrastructure for smuggling, offering cheap air freight, no border charges and complete anonymity for Asian manufacturers.
The effectiveness of customs services also depends to a large extent on the rights holders themselves (including trademark and industrial design owners). The EU Application for Action (AFA), as set out in Regulation 608/2013, is a key tool. The AFA enables customs authorities to act more quickly and systematically, based on the information about rights and methods for identifying counterfeits. While customs authorities can detain suspicious goods ex officio, their ability to take further action is much more limited without the active involvement of the rights holder.
In practice, business owners rarely carry out these procedures themselves. Professional representatives, such as patent attorneys and legal advisers, therefore, play a key role. They act as the direct link between businesses and customs officials. They prepare AFA applications and organise practical workshops for National Revenue Administration officers on identifying counterfeits. And if a consignment is detained, they act quickly to submit applications for the goods to be destroyed or refer cases to the courts.
While the authorities struggle to cope with the volume of consignments, actively reporting infringements and maintaining constant contact with customs officials remains the most effective way to protect a brand. This is a classic example of how small, consistent efforts can help to overcome significant obstacles and improve conditions for individual entrepreneurs. While these efforts won't put a stop to the practice overnight, they can help to tighten up the system. Every formal application to the National Revenue Administration, every training session for officers, and every blocked quota sends a clear message that impunity has its limits.
The Illusion of the Algorithmic Filter and the Limits of the Law
A frequently raised proposal is to introduce a blanket ban on online listings, i.e. a preventive monitoring system that would stop any illegal listings from being published. While this sounds great in theory, in practice it would be like fighting a Hydra, with the law and technology continually losing out to human ingenuity.
Sellers of counterfeit goods have long known how to create listings that do not arouse the suspicion of automated systems. Instead of using trademarked names, they use letter codes, slang abbreviations, deliberate typos, or neologisms that are understood only by an in-the-know community on forums and TikTok. Photographs are modified using algorithms; brand logos are digitally removed or covered with emojis, or superimposed onto the product only after the transaction has been finalised. It has become common practice to dispatch items with separate emblems attached for the buyer to iron on or stick on themselves.
Furthermore, it takes several hours for the system to block a single seller’s account on the platform, while creating ten new accounts, registered using fake details, takes just a few dozen seconds. Obligating platforms to filter all uploaded material before publication carries a high risk of ‘over-blocking,’ i.e. censoring legitimate trade and small-scale craftspeople and artists who are operating legally. For years, EU law has deliberately protected platforms from liability for third-party listings, for fear that strict regulation would stifle the growth of the digital economy. However, it is now clear that this neutrality is being exploited to turn profit from the sale of illegal goods.
The End of the Lenient Treatment
When existing methods have failed and losses amounting to billions threaten the innovative capacity of European industry, where is the point at which a turnaround must take place? The answer lies at the intersection of fiscal policy, stricter legal accountability, and the transformation of business models.
A Blow to the Economic Calculus
Counterfeit goods will only disappear from online shopping baskets when they are no longer cheap. The first and most significant step (starting from 1 July 2026), is the unconditional abolition of the €150 threshold exempting goods from customs duties. The introduction of a flat-rate duty and mandatory handling charges for the clearance of every consignment from outside the EU will significantly alter the outcome of the pro-consumer calculation, regardless of how small the consignment is. For example, if the fixed charges and taxes on a counterfeit T-shirt ordered for 30 zloty amount to an additional 40 zloty, the allure of the Asian marketplace will disappear.
The End of the ‘Intermediary’ Fiction (DSA and GPSR standard)
Although the Digital Services Act (DSA) does not impose general liability on platforms for every illegal listing posted by a third-party seller, the days when a major marketplace could limit its responsibilities to providing technological infrastructure, only acting once a specific counterfeit item had been identified, are over. The DSA imposes various obligations on e-commerce platforms relating to the identification of sellers, the design of the user interface, handling reports of illegal content, and verifying product information, amongst other things. For the largest platforms, this is further complicated by the obligation to systematically assess and mitigate the risks associated with the distribution of illegal products. In July 2026, the European Commission fined AliExpress €550 million for breaching its DSA obligations. The company was found to have conducted an insufficient risk assessment and mitigation process relating to the sale of illegal, dangerous, or counterfeit products.
While the fines totalling hundreds of millions of euros imposed by the European Commission under the Digital Services Act are a positive step, this must be maintained consistently. It is worth noting that some marketplaces demonstrate that active IP protection is both possible and cost-effective. Examples include the Polish platform Allegro, which has developed its ‘Cooperation in the Protection of Rights’ programme over many years to provide brands with direct channels for rapid response, and Amazon, which has a Brand Registry system and dedicated anti-counterfeiting investigation teams. This is why it is crucial that the regulations are enforced against all entities reaching European consumers and that the penalties are severe enough to act as a deterrent.
At the same time, product safety legislation applies. Under the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR), products falling within its scope can only be placed on the market if a responsible economic operator within the European Union is in place to fulfil specific obligations relating to their safety and compliance. Combined with sector-specific regulations concerning toys, cosmetics, and electronics, for example, this makes it more difficult to sell products from anonymous manufacturers outside the EU. It also increases the risk of sanctions for entities involved in placing these products on the EU market.
Multilayer IP Shield
A modern intellectual property strategy requires a multi-layered approach to the product as well as discipline in several areas simultaneously. Legal protection must cover not only the logo itself, but also the product’s unique appearance and shape, as these are most susceptible to copying. Strict control must also be exercised over outsourced production facilities, to prevent original moulds, patterns, and materials from ending up on the black market. In addition, the manufacturer must provide clear guidelines to customs authorities on how to distinguish a copy from the original, and there must be day-to-day cooperation between the two parties. Systematic monitoring of the internet must also be combined with responding to counterfeit products offered.
However, it is unrealistic to expect companies to develop and manage such a complex system alone. This is why the role of professional representatives, such as patent attorneys and intellectual property law lawyers, is growing in modern business. They help to secure the supply chain, select appropriate protection tools tailored to the specific nature of the product, and oversee the prevention system. Only within such a framework can intellectual property law become an active defence system for a company, effectively extending the life cycle of its products.
Circular Revolution and Authorised Secondary Market
The approach adopted by companies such as IKEA, with its Circular Hub branches and furniture buy-back scheme, and leading outdoor brands, such as Patagonia with its programmes for repairing and reselling second-hand clothing, is an effective way to reduce demand for counterfeit goods.
Creating official, branded resale platforms ('re-commerce') that offer authenticity certification and a guarantee of condition removes the incentive for counterfeiters. Customers who are unwilling or unable to spend 1,000 zloty on a new product should be able to purchase an authentic, refurbished item at half the price from a reliable source. This strategy is not only ecological, but also a business imperative that fosters long-term loyalty and deters buyers from Chinese applications.
The Social Cost of Apparent Savings
Unfortunately, the explosion of the counterfeit market reflects the state of modern Europe. Although we claim to adhere to the strictest environmental, labour and safety standards, we are also ordering vast quantities of unregulated, cheap goods from the other side of the globe.
The true cost of counterfeit toys, cheap watches or suspiciously cheap creams is not limited to the amount paid. To this must be added the cost of environmental pollution caused by untested chemicals and the appalling working conditions in semi-legal factories. There is also the cost of the collapse of small European businesses that pay taxes and meet stringent standards, as well as the impact on national budgets.
No customs service, QR code or lawsuit for intellectual property infringement will be able to stop this avalanche until we approach this problem holistically, tackle it at its roots and, as a society, stop treating the purchase of counterfeit goods as resourceful. Even if it were technically possible, genuine barriers will not be created by the algorithmic filters of e-commerce platforms, but only when we combine customs and tax barriers with strategic intellectual property management, and when manufacturers return to producing goods of a quality for which people are willing to pay a fair price.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
