Strengthening Intellectual Property rights protection against counterfeiting on marketplaces

I – The rise of marketplaces in the digital economy

1. From Web 1.0 to Web 3.0: The evolution of platforms

Marketplaces are the outcome of rapid technological developments on the Web. In the 1990s, Web 1.0 was defined by static pages with purely informational purposes. E-commerce was in its infancy, with Amazon and eBay emerging as early pioneers as early as 1995.

With the advent of Web 2.0 in the 2000s, users became active participants. The exchange of information expanded via blogs, social networks, and online reviews. Within this context, marketplaces emerged. Platforms that allow multiple vendors to offer their products or services simultaneously through a single interface, typically operated by a third party.

Marketplaces differ from traditional e-commerce sites. They do not sell directly, but instead facilitate transactions between sellers and buyers. They manage the entire commercial experience, including payments, visibility, logistics, and customer service. This model has experienced exponential growth: first in B2C (Amazon, Cdiscount, Fnac), then B2B (Alibaba), and finally in C2C (Vinted, Leboncoin).

Today, marketplaces are ubiquitous. According to FEVAD, in 2024, 78% of French consumers visited at least one of the top 20 marketplaces each month. Their role in global distribution is central, and their influence extends beyond commerce, they now set consumption standards in terms of speed, accessibility, and trust.

Web 3.0, currently emerging, is based on decentralization, blockchain, and artificial intelligence. It paves the way for new forms of marketplaces, particularly in the NFT, gaming, and digital services sectors, where users themselves become owners or sellers without relying on a central operator.

1. The economic weight of marketplaces

Marketplaces have become key drivers of the digital economy, disrupting traditional distribution models. By centralizing the offerings of multiple vendors on a single platform, they have transformed e-commerce into an interconnected ecosystem.

Their appeal lies in flexibility: merchants can reach a wide audience without the costs of running their own sales infrastructure. Consumers benefit from broader choices and optimized purchasing conditions. For platforms, it is a lever for exponential growth based on shared technology, logistics, and marketing.

In France, this model has become the standard. In 2023, online sales reached €160 billion, with nearly 70% generated via marketplaces. E-commerce now accounts for about 11% of total retail trade. This trend is not limited to global giants : traditional retailers such as La Redoute, Fnac-Darty, Boulanger, and Carrefour have adopted hybrid models combining direct sales with marketplace functionality to boost competitiveness and diversify revenue.

Marketplaces are also expanding into services, whether B2B, B2C, or specialized platforms for logistics, temporary staffing, or technical solutions. This market represents a new frontier in digital commerce.

However, success comes with risk. By opening access to global trade, marketplaces have also multiplied vulnerabilities, particularly in the area of counterfeiting. This evolution calls for an appropriate legal and strategic response from both platforms and rights holders.

 

II – A breeding ground for Intellectual Property infringements

Despite their commercial legitimacy, marketplaces remain a primary vector for Intellectual Property violations.

1. Counterfeiting, misappropriation, and brand exploitation

Anyone can now sell on a marketplace, sometimes without any reliable identity verification. Some sellers take advantage of this by imitating or copying well-known brands: handbags, cosmetics, watches, or clothing are frequently offered at bargain prices using logos, names, or images borrowed from famous brands.

In 2024, LVMH reported a more than 30% increase in fraudulent ads on social media, often linked to counterfeit products on marketplaces. These ads, sometimes very well produced, offer discounts of up to 80%, capitalizing on events like seasonal sales to entice buyers. After clicking, users are redirected to either a deceptive replica of a brand website or to a product listing on a lenient marketplace.

A major difficulty lies in the ineffectiveness of reporting mechanisms. Even when accounts are shut down, others, often linked to the same individuals, remain active. They typically share WhatsApp numbers or similar usernames, showing the counterfeiters’ ability to adapt and reconfigure swiftly.

This exploitation of brands is not limited to the luxury sector. All industries are affected, from cosmetics to electronics, and this occurs across both global and local marketplaces, including those with lower oversight.

1. Methods used by counterfeiters

Fraudsters use various tactics to sell illegal goods while evading detection:

• Ghost merchants: temporary seller profiles that appear for a single transaction and then disappear. They often pose as local vendors but ship from abroad, especially China, using fake identities and without any KYC (Know Your Customer) verification.
• Dropshipping: sellers hold no stock. Once an order is placed, the product is shipped directly from a third-party supplier, often unverified. This enables rapid, large-scale sales with minimal risk and complicates brand enforcement actions.
• Mirror sites: counterfeiters replicate official brand or distributor websites to appear legitimate.
• Counterfeit shop kits: “ready-to-use” kits are sold online, containing everything needed to launch a fake store : graphic identity, fake reviews, copied product images.

These methods are highly effective thanks to a flexible digital ecosystem leveraging social media, encrypted messaging (e.g., WhatsApp), and global payment platforms. Rights holders must contend with opaque, shifting structures, often based outside Europe, making legal actions long and costly.

III – Marketplace mechanisms to combat counterfeiting

Given the scale of IP infringements on their platforms, marketplaces have been compelled to act. In recent years, they have implemented specific systems to detect, report, and remove illicit content, particularly counterfeit listings.

These Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) programs aim to facilitate collaboration between rights holders and platforms. The most prominent include:

• Amazon Brand Registry
• Alibaba IP Protection Platform
• Shopee IP Management System
• TikTok Shop IP Portal

These systems allow brands to register their IP rights in a secure space and report infringing listings directly. If the file is complete, takedowns can be rapid, on Alibaba or Taobao, for instance, listings may be removed within 48 hours. Management tools also allow brand owners to act through authorized representatives, streamlining procedures and enabling multi-platform enforcement.

French marketplaces have also implemented mechanisms to address the growing demand for anti-counterfeiting enforcement. Platforms such as Cdiscount, Fnac.com, Darty, or Rue du Commerce each provide specific procedures for rights holders to report infringing listings. While these systems are not always explicitly labeled as “IPP” programs, they serve similar functions: submission of a takedown request, proof of ownership, evidence of the alleged infringement, and a request for removal. For instance, Fnac-Darty offers an online reporting form via its legal support center, whereas Cdiscount maintains a contact channel for IP owners through its website or legal department. However, these tools often suffer from limited visibility and a lack of standardization, and their responsiveness can vary significantly. A harmonized approach to such procedures at the national (or ideally European) level would greatly enhance their efficiency and better support rights holders, especially SMEs that may lack the resources to navigate these platforms effectively.

However, these programs alone are not sufficient to curb the spread of illicit content. They largely rely on the proactive vigilance of rights holders, who must dedicate human and technical resources to continuous monitoring.

Moreover, efficiency varies across platforms. Major marketplaces offer user-friendly, professional interfaces and quick response times. In contrast, smaller platforms often provide basic, untranslated forms, slower processing times, and are less reactive in repeat infringement cases. Some regional or Asian platforms lack proper KYC protocols, which further facilitates impunity.

Fraudsters also adapt quickly: accounts are deleted and recreated immediately, and visuals or product names are subtly changed. The chase is relentless. While IPP systems represent real progress, they must be harmonized, extended to emerging platforms, and embedded in broader legal and technical strategies supported by international cooperation.

IV – A strengthened European legal framework: The Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

The European Union has adopted two landmark regulations to govern digital platforms: the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), both fully effective since February 2024. Their shared goals are to enhance digital safety, protect user rights, and ensure fair competition.

The DSA obliges platforms to promptly remove manifestly illegal content and introduces:

• Accessible, user-friendly reporting systems
• A right of appeal in case of wrongful content removal
• Privileged status for “trusted flaggers”
• Increased transparency in advertising and recommendation algorithms

Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), those with over 45 million monthly users in the EU, such as Amazon, Meta, or TikTok, are subject to stricter obligations: annual systemic risk assessments, independent audits, and reinforced cooperation with national authorities and the European Commission.

The DMA targets gatekeepers, dominant platforms like Google and Apple, and bans unfair practices such as self-preferencing and ecosystem lock-in. It seeks to restore competitive market conditions and foster innovation.

The DSA also provides for out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms, allowing users to challenge moderation decisions within 90 days. While platforms are not obliged to comply with these rulings, unjustified refusals mean they must bear the costs, thereby encouraging fair play.

Together, these regulations redefine platform responsibility in the digital space. They place marketplaces under obligations regarding counterfeiting, consumer protection, and competitive fairness, anchoring a new logic of transparency, accountability, and due diligence in EU digital governance.

 

Conclusion

Combating counterfeiting on marketplaces is a strategic priority for any company seeking to protect its brand image, revenue, and consumer trust. The combination of legal tools, internal marketplace protections, and tailored enforcement strategies across all sales channels is key to success.

We support rights holders daily in identifying and removing illicit content from digital marketplaces.

Dreyfus & Associés works in partnership with a global network of IP law specialists.

Nathalie Dreyfus and the Dreyfus team

 

FAQ