Trade in counterfeit goods now largely begins on a screen. The 2025 OECD and EUIPO report finds that counterfeiters use online platforms and modern logistics to blend into legitimate commerce, and that postal shipments have become the leading channel for distributing counterfeits. In the 2020-21 period, around 60 per cent of seized goods arrived by post. The share of shipments containing fewer than 10 items rose from 61 per cent in 2017-19 to 79 per cent. The report stresses that small parcels have spread since the pandemic along with the growth of marketplace shopping.
This picture shows that a significant part of brand protection work has to be done at the listing level, that is, before the product reaches the buyer.
The legal framework
The EU Digital Services Act
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act (DSA), has applied to all online platforms since 17 February 2024. The provisions that stand out for brand protection are these:
- Hosting provider liability (Article 6): a provider cannot rely on the liability exemption if, upon obtaining actual knowledge of illegal content, it does not act expeditiously to remove it.
- Notice and action mechanism (Article 16): hosting providers must put in place an easily accessible notice mechanism. A notice must contain a sufficiently substantiated explanation of why the content is illegal, the exact electronic location such as the full URL, the name and email address of the notifier, and a statement of good faith that the information is accurate and complete. A notice of a kind that allows a diligent provider to identify the illegality without a detailed legal examination gives rise to actual knowledge on the provider's part. The platform must notify the receipt of the notice and its decision without undue delay.
- Statement of reasons and redress (Articles 17 and 20): the seller whose content is restricted is given a statement of reasons and can contest the decision through the platform's internal complaint-handling system for at least six months.
- Trusted flaggers (Article 22): notices from entities awarded that status by Digital Services Coordinators, which meet conditions of expertise, independence and diligence, are handled with priority and without undue delay.
- Measures against misuse (Article 23): platforms must suspend, after issuing a prior warning, the service of users who frequently provide manifestly illegal content for a reasonable period. The same article also provides for suspending the processing of notices from those who frequently submit manifestly unfounded notices.
- Traceability of traders (Article 30): marketplaces must obtain the trader's name, address, telephone and email details, identification document, payment account and, where applicable, trade register details, and must obtain a self-certification from the trader that it will offer only products complying with EU law.
The European Commission's Recommendation (EU) 2024/915 of 19 March 2024 complements this framework. It invites rights holders who have signed the memorandum of understanding on the online sale of counterfeit goods to consider applying for trusted flagger status under the DSA, and invites economic operators to develop technical solutions that identify repeated infringements of the same intellectual property right by the same person.
Türkiye: Law No. 6563
In Türkiye, Article 9 of Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce, amended in 2022 by Law No. 7416, contains a similar mechanism. Under it, an intermediary service provider in electronic commerce removes a product from publication upon a complaint by the rights holder based on information and documents showing an infringement of an intellectual or industrial property right, and notifies the seller and the rights holder. If the seller submits an objection based on information and documents to the contrary, the product is published again. The complaint and the objection must contain the parties' full identity and address details, information about the disputed product and the reasons; the parties' right to apply to judicial and administrative authorities is reserved.
Evidence: the quality of the notice decides the outcome
Both the DSA and Law No. 6563 expect a notice to be substantiated and supported by documents. A weak notice is either rejected or reversed shortly afterwards by the seller's objection. A strong evidence package generally contains:
- The listing's full URL and the seller or shop identifier on the platform
- Screenshots with date and time information and an archived copy of the page
- A description of the right relied on: registration number, registered classes and, where needed, design or copyright details
- A concrete justification of the infringement: imitation of the logo or packaging, unauthorised use of the original product photographs, a model the brand has never made, or an implausible price
- Where possible, a test purchase and physical examination of the product: comparing packaging, labelling and security features with the original
Accuracy is an obligation too
Article 23 of the DSA is a reminder that notices from those who frequently submit manifestly unfounded notices can be suspended. The objection mechanism in Law No. 6563 likewise turns back incorrect complaints. That makes it critical to distinguish a counterfeit product from a genuine product sold through an unauthorised channel. Because of the principle of exhaustion of rights, resale of a genuine product may not amount to trademark infringement in every case; such cases call for a separate legal assessment.
A step-by-step removal process
- Monitoring: marketplaces, social media accounts, digital advertising, domain names and app stores are scanned regularly.
- Prioritisation: products carrying health and safety risks, listings with high sales volumes and repeat sellers come first.
- Evidence package: the elements above are collected in a standard format for each listing.
- Notice: the platform's own notice mechanism or intellectual property programme is used and the mandatory elements are completed in full.
- Follow-up: the acknowledgement, the decision and the statement of reasons are tracked; additional documents are prepared against a seller's objection.
- Recurrence check: whether the removed listing reappears under the same or a different account is checked.
- Escalation: for continuing patterns, action at account level is requested from the platform and legal remedies are pursued where necessary.
Repeat sellers
Removing listings one by one can come to nothing when the same seller returns with new accounts. To make repeat infringers visible, the common features across listings are tracked: the same product photographs, the same description texts, the same contact details, the same despatch addresses or the same payment methods. When these links are documented and presented to the platform, a request to suspend the account under Article 23 of the DSA gains a concrete basis. The seller information marketplaces collect under Article 30 also becomes important in legal proceedings. The Commission's recommendation stresses that economic operators should be encouraged to share relevant information and evidence with rights holders for the purposes of legal action.
Social media and advertising
Selling on social media often starts with a post, a story or an ad and continues through messaging. Because the DSA's notice and action rules apply to hosting service providers, social media platforms are also obliged to offer a notice mechanism. For content that stays online only briefly, recording evidence immediately and with a timestamp is especially important; for ads, so is including the advertiser's account details in the notice.
Spectrace's Authex solution supports this process end to end: it monitors marketplaces, social media, digital advertising, domain names and app stores, documents findings, files takedown requests and follows them until they are resolved. Verifying products obtained through a test purchase with Grafex or Tagvex through the mobile app strengthens the evidence on whether the product in the listing is genuine.
Conclusion
Tackling counterfeit listings online is a continuous process rather than a matter of one-off takedown requests. The DSA and Law No. 6563 provide a framework that responds to well-prepared notices. What decides the outcome is the quality of the evidence, the accuracy of the notices and systematic monitoring of repeat sellers.
Sources
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), 2022
- European Commission, The Digital Services Act, 2026
- EUR-Lex, Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/915 on measures to combat counterfeiting, 2024
- Legislation Information System, Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce (Turkish), 2014
- OECD/EUIPO, Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025, 2025
