More than 196 million items suspected of infringing intellectual property rights were detained across the European Union in 2025, with an estimated value of €6.3 billion. This represents a 67% increase in just one year and more than 29% above the previous record set in 2023 (EUIPO and European Commission, EU Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Results at the EU Border and in the EU Internal Market 2025, 22 October 2026).
A record reflects both the scale of a problem and the intensity of the efforts made to address it. Yet these figures also reveal a less flattering reality for rights holders: increasingly effective enforcement by public authorities is not necessarily matched by greater engagement on the part of rights holders. Let us first examine the scale of the detentions (I), before considering the diligence required of rights holders (II).
I. The Scale of the Problem
1. Breaking Down the Record
At the EU’s external borders, customs authorities detained 42.1 million items, an increase of 114%, with an estimated value of nearly €1.95 billion. Within the internal market, enforcement activities carried out by customs, police and market surveillance authorities also accounted for a substantial proportion of detentions, representing an estimated value of €4.55 billion.
China remained the leading country of provenance for goods detained at the EU border, accounting for 40.85% of items, followed by Türkiye (18.55%).
The breakdown by product category is somewhat surprising. At the border, tobacco products other than cigarettes dominated, accounting for approximately 42% of detained items. Within the internal market, recorded media and software were among the leading categories, representing nearly 33% of items, ahead of toys.
2. Two Economies, One Set of Statistics
For the first time, road transport overtook maritime freight in terms of the number of items detained at the EU border: 57.13% compared with 25.91%. Express courier services and postal shipments accounted for just 8.60% and 4.20% of items, respectively.
Yet the European Commission’s report highlights that most detention cases involved goods transported by express courier or post.
Two distinct economies therefore coexist.
The first is measured by volume: large shipments in which a single detention may involve millions of items.
The second is measured by the number of cases: small parcels, frequently associated with e-commerce, ordered through online marketplaces or websites operating under domain names.
In their Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025 report, published in May 2025, the OECD and EUIPO had already highlighted the difficulties associated with monitoring small consignments and the risks arising from their proliferation.
The latest European report calls for closer cooperation with major transport operators and online marketplaces.
This recommendation forms part of a broader trend towards greater platform accountability under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act. Proceedings initiated by the European Commission against major e-commerce platforms, including Temu and AliExpress, illustrate the growing regulatory attention paid to the risks associated with the distribution of illegal products. These proceedings, however, fall under a legal framework distinct from customs enforcement.
II. The Diligence Required of Rights Holders
1. Trademarks as the Principal Rights Enforced
At the EU border, trademarks accounted for 93.95% of detained items and 96.72% of their estimated value. Within the internal market, they represented more than 57% of detained items.
In practice, customs enforcement therefore serves as an essential instrument of trademark protection, although it also extends to other intellectual property rights.
2. An Enforcement System Largely Dependent on Rights Holders’ Initiative
Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 establishes the framework for customs enforcement concerning goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights.
Although Article 18 allows customs authorities to act on their own initiative, the system relies primarily on applications for action submitted by eligible rights holders and other entitled persons.
According to the report, however, the number of national applications for action processed fell by 1.41%. Alerts submitted through the IPEP portal also declined, while ex officio interventions accounted for only 1.82% of cases.
The record number of detentions therefore does not necessarily reflect increased engagement by rights holders.
One particularly striking example illustrates the consequences of this dependence: an exceptional detention involving 16 million tobacco products ultimately resulted in their release because the rights holder failed to take the necessary action. In other words, a customs operation involving millions of items suspected of counterfeiting did not lead to their destruction. Identifying suspicious goods is not enough: where required, rights holders must take the procedural steps necessary to pursue enforcement.
This was not an isolated occurrence. According to the report, in 5.51% of cases, goods were detained without the rights holder taking the expected action.
Conversely, the simplified procedure for the destruction of small consignments, provided for under Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, offers a particularly useful enforcement mechanism. It accounted for 28.12% of destructions, an increase of 39.26% compared with the previous year.
Rights holders may request the application of this procedure when submitting their application for action. Where the statutory conditions are met, the goods may then be destroyed without systematically requiring the rights holder’s express agreement in each individual case.
This simplification is not without limits. If the declarant or holder of the goods objects to their destruction, the rights holder may need to intervene, notably by initiating proceedings to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed.
The practical lesson is straightforward. Rights holders should ensure that their applications for action are up to date, cover all relevant rights and products, contain sufficiently detailed information to enable customs authorities to identify suspicious goods, and expressly request the application of the small consignments procedure where appropriate.
Combating online counterfeiting does not end with detecting websites and domain names used to market infringing products. It also requires effective enforcement when those products physically cross borders.
Otherwise, suspected counterfeit goods will continue to cross borders, parcel by parcel.
About IP Twins
IP Twins assists businesses in protecting their trademarks and digital assets worldwide. Its services include domain name monitoring, the detection of online intellectual property infringements, the recovery of abusively registered domain names, and the development and implementation of online brand protection strategies.