08.09.2026
Counterfeiting now affects businesses across every sector, with infringing listings, websites and accounts appearing faster than many traditional enforcement methods can address them. Charlotte Wilding examines how brands can respond more effectively.
Thank you
For many years, counterfeits were viewed as a problem primarily affecting luxury brands. Typically associated with fake designer handbags sold in street markets, enforcement strategies focused on identifying and dismantling relatively limited networks of infringers.
That world has changed. Today, online counterfeiting has become a volume problem affecting brands of every size and sector, from fashion and cosmetics to software, consumer electronics, and industrial products.
The scale of the challenge is striking. According to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and EUIPO research, global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods reached approximately USD 467 billion in 2021, representing around 2.3% of world trade. This is huge.
The same report highlights the growing role of e-commerce, small parcel shipments, and increasingly fragmented distribution channels in facilitating counterfeit trade.
The issue is no longer simply whether a brand owner can identify an infringement. The challenge is whether it can identify and address thousands of infringements quickly enough to prevent consumer confusion, reputational damage, and lost revenue.
Historically, online brand enforcement might involve a handful of domain name disputes, a few marketplace takedowns, and occasional cease-and-desist correspondence.
Today, many brand owners face hundreds or even thousands of infringing listings at any given time.
This trend is reflected in domain name dispute statistics. WIPO handled 6,282 domain name cases in 2025, the highest caseload in its history, compared with 2,755 cases a decade earlier. The figures demonstrate that cybersquatting and domain-based brand abuse remain central features of the modern enforcement landscape.
The increase is not simply a result of more businesses trading online. Rather, it reflects a fundamental shift in the economics of infringement.
Counterfeiters no longer need substantial infrastructure or investment. A single operator can establish dozens of websites, create hundreds of marketplace listings, and open multiple social media accounts at minimal cost. When one channel is removed, another appears almost immediately.
As a result, enforcement has become an exercise in managing scale rather than tackling isolated incidents.
Much has been written about artificial intelligence (AI) transforming the counterfeiting landscape.
There is no doubt that AI is lowering barriers to entry for bad actors. Generative AI tools can now create convincing copycat websites, product descriptions, logos, and advertising content within minutes.
However, there is a risk of allowing AI narratives to distract from the more immediate problem.
The reality facing most brand owners today is not a wave of perfectly engineered AI-generated fakes that are impossible to detect. Instead, it is the overwhelming volume of relatively unsophisticated infringements appearing across marketplaces, social media platforms, independent websites, and domain names.
The current challenge is more accurately characterized as “hype versus reality.”
AI undoubtedly enhances the capabilities of counterfeiters, but even without advanced AI-generated deception, thousands of infringing listings can appear faster than they can be reviewed manually. For many enforcement professionals, the genuine crisis is one of scale.
Traditional enforcement models were built around identifying individual infringements and responding on a case-by-case basis.
That approach remains important, particularly where litigation, customs action, or strategic disputes are required. However, such methods are increasingly difficult to apply across large online environments.
Consider a common scenario. A rights holder identifies 50 infringing marketplace listings. By the time those listings have been reviewed and removed, another 50 may have appeared.
This creates several practical difficulties.
First, legal teams face a resource challenge. Manual monitoring is often unable to keep pace with the speed of modern infringement.
Secondly, enforcement costs can escalate rapidly if each infringement requires individual assessment and intervention.
Thirdly, brands risk suffering reputational harm even where enforcement is technically successful. Consumers who encounter fake websites or counterfeit products often fail to distinguish between the infringer and the brand owner.
In response, many brand owners are shifting from reactive enforcement to proactive monitoring.
Rather than waiting for consumer or distributor complaints, businesses increasingly deploy technology-driven monitoring systems to identify suspicious activity at an earlier stage.
This includes monitoring domain name registrations, social media accounts, online marketplaces, and mobile applications.
The objective is not necessarily to eliminate every infringement. That is rarely achievable. Instead, the aim is to reduce exposure, prioritize the most harmful activity, and respond before significant consumer damage occurs.
Physical counterfeit goods continue to pose a significant threat, such that customs enforcement remains an important component of a comprehensive protection strategy.
Applications for Action (AFAs) enable border authorities to identify, detain, and destroy suspected counterfeit goods before they enter the market.
Internal guidance and industry experience consistently demonstrate that customs measures can be an effective tool in preventing large volumes of infringing products from reaching consumers.
Importantly, online and offline enforcement should not be viewed separately. Many counterfeit operations utilize a combination of digital storefronts and physical supply chains.
Effective protection, therefore, requires coordinated action across both environments.
Looking ahead, the most successful enforcement programs are likely to combine legal expertise with technology-enabled monitoring and automation.
AI will undoubtedly play a role in both infringement and enforcement. The same technologies that enable counterfeiters to create content more quickly can also assist rights holders in detecting infringements across vast digital ecosystems.
Indeed, many modern brand protection platforms are already using automated detection and enforcement tools to monitor marketplaces, social media platforms, websites, and domain names at scale.
Yet the core principle remains unchanged. Enforcement is ultimately about protecting consumers, preserving trust, and maintaining the integrity of a brand.
The difference is that the challenge is no longer finding the needle in the haystack. It is managing a haystack that continues to grow every minute.
For rights holders, the lesson is clear: online counterfeiting is no longer merely a luxury brand problem, nor is it primarily an AI problem. It is a volume problem.
The brands that succeed will be those that recognize this shift and build enforcement strategies capable of operating at scale.
The greatest enforcement challenge is the sheer volume of counterfeit listings, fake websites, rogue domains, and impersonation activity appearing across an increasingly fragmented digital ecosystem.
However, with a carefully thought-out enforcement strategy, brands can start to win the battle against counterfeiters.
Thank you
