Netherlands

In the Netherlands, criminal enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights is available but selective. IP infringements are primarily addressed through civil law, while criminal law is reserved, for example, for large-scale professional infringement (where the infringer earns a lot of money from the infringement) or when there are indications of involvement by criminal organisations and health risk and consumer safety are at stake.

Criminal enforcement is carried out by:

• the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie);
• investigative authorities such as the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) and the police; and
• customs authorities, particularly in relation to counterfeit goods entering or circulating within the EU.

Not all enforcement of intellectual property rights is carried out through criminal law, but examples include large-scale counterfeiting and piracy. In order to initiate criminal proceedings, there must be a large-scale infringement that distorts the market. The infringement must also be professional in nature (this has been determined by the Court of Appeal). In general, the creators of copyright-protected works and their successors in title are expected to enforce their rights themselves through the civil courts.

Offences

Criminal offences relating to intellectual property in the Netherlands include the intentional and commercial-scale counterfeiting of trademarks, deliberate copyright piracy, the unlawful manufacture, import, export, possession, or distribution of counterfeit goods, and participation in organised activities aimed at infringing intellectual property rights. These offences are typically prosecuted when they are carried out deliberately and for commercial or professional purposes.

Burden of proof

In criminal intellectual property proceedings, the burden of proof rests entirely with the Public Prosecution Service. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a valid intellectual property right exists, that the defendant committed the infringing acts, that the acts were intentional, and, where relevant, that the infringement occurred on a commercial scale.

Penalties

Penalties for criminal intellectual property offences in the Netherlands may include substantial fines, imprisonment, community service, confiscation of profits derived from the infringement, and the seizure of assets used in committing the offence. More severe penalties may be imposed where the offence involves organised crime, repeated infringement, or risks to public health or consumer safety.

Disposition of the goods at issue

Counterfeit or otherwise infringing goods that are seized during criminal proceedings are generally confiscated and destroyed once infringement has been established. The destruction of such goods usually takes place without any compensation to the infringer, and equipment or materials used to produce the counterfeit goods may also be confiscated.

Involvement of rights holders

Rights holders do not control criminal proceedings but are expected to play a supporting role in the process. They typically assist by reporting infringements, providing evidence of ownership and authenticity, cooperating with investigators, and, where applicable, submitting a claim for damages as an injured party within the criminal proceedings.

The Netherlands does not have separate criminal IP courts. Criminal IP cases are handled by regular criminal courts. However, the Netherlands does have specialised civil IP chambers, notably: the District Court of The Hague, which has exclusive or central jurisdiction over many civil IP matters (patents, EU trademarks, EU designs).

Civil enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Netherlands

Legal framework for civil enforcement. Civil enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights in the Netherlands is governed by a combination of European Union legislation, Benelux law and national law. The most important European instrument is the Directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, which harmonises enforcement measures across EU Member States. The directive requires Member States to provide effective, proportionate, and dissuasive remedies for infringement of intellectual property rights.

At the national level, several legal sources regulate IP enforcement, including the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) and the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering). Specific intellectual property rights are governed by additional legislation such as the Dutch Copyright Act, the Dutch Patent Act 1995, and the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property, which regulates trademarks and designs within the Benelux region.

These legal instruments provide the procedural mechanisms and substantive rights that enable IP owners to enforce their rights through civil litigation.

Courts involved in civil IP enforcement. Civil enforcement of IP rights in the Netherlands takes place primarily before district courts. These courts handle infringement claims and requests for remedies such as injunctions or damages.

A particularly important role is played by the District Court of The Hague, which has exclusive jurisdiction over many patent disputes and is widely recognised as a specialised forum for complex intellectual property litigation. Also, the District Court of The Hague specialises in and handles a lot of cases regarding TM and design rights, but it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over these matters.

Urgent matters may be handled by a preliminary relief judge through expedited proceedings known as kort geding. These proceedings allow courts to issue provisional measures, such as temporary injunctions, when immediate action is required to prevent ongoing infringement.

Decisions of district courts can be appealed to the courts of appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on matters of law.

Framework for civil enforcement. The Dutch system relies primarily on private enforcement, meaning that the intellectual property rights holder must initiate legal proceedings against alleged infringers. Enforcement procedures typically involve several stages.

First, the rights holder may seek preservation of evidence or seizure of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights. This helps prevent destruction of evidence before trial.

Second, the claimant may initiate preliminary injunction proceedings to quickly stop ongoing infringement.

Finally, the case may proceed to full civil litigation in which the court determines liability and awards remedies such as damages or corrective measures.

This framework ensures that rights holders have both rapid provisional protection and the possibility of obtaining full compensation through proceedings on the merits.

Rights of intellectual property owners. Intellectual property owners in the Netherlands have several legal rights that enable them to enforce their interests through civil litigation.

These include the right to:

• bring infringement proceedings before civil courts;
• request provisional measures such as injunctions;
• requests for seizures;
• obtain information regarding the origin and distribution of infringing goods;
• seek compensation for damages caused by infringement;
• request corrective measures such as destruction or recall of infringing products.

These rights are intended to both stop unlawful activities and compensate the rights holder for economic harm.

Available civil remedies. Dutch law provides a wide range of civil remedies for intellectual property infringement:

• Injunctions. Courts can issue injunctions requiring the defendant to immediately cease infringing activities. Injunctions may also be accompanied by penalty payments if the infringer fails to comply with the court order.
• Preservation orders and evidence seizure. Rights holders may obtain orders allowing the preservation of evidence or the seizure of suspected infringing goods. These measures help secure proof of infringement and prevent the removal or concealment of infringing products.
• Information orders. Courts may order defendants to disclose information about the origin, distribution networks, and quantities of infringing goods. This information can help identify additional parties involved in the infringement.
• Destruction or recall of infringing goods. Courts may order infringing goods to be destroyed, removed from the market, or recalled from distribution channels.
• Publication of the judgment. In certain cases, courts may order publication of the judgment to inform the public and restore the reputation of the rights holder.
• Recovery of legal costs. Dutch law allows the prevailing party in IP cases to recover reasonable and proportionate legal costs, including attorney fees and expert costs. This rule reflects the enforcement directive’s aim of ensuring effective protection of intellectual property rights.
• Punitive damages. Punitive damages are generally not available under Dutch law. The purpose of damages is compensatory rather than punitive.

Damage and loss-of-profit remedies. Dutch courts provide several methods for calculating financial compensation in IP infringement cases:

• Actual damages. The rights holder may claim compensation for the actual loss suffered due to the infringement. This may include lost sales, reduced market share, or price erosion resulting from the presence of infringing products.
• Lost profits. Damages may also be calculated based on the profits the rights holder would reasonably have earned if the infringement had not occurred.
• Reasonable royalty. Where actual losses are difficult to quantify, courts may award damages based on a hypothetical license fee that the infringer would have paid if it had lawfully obtained permission to use the intellectual property.
• Disgorgement of profits. Instead of claiming damages, the rights holder may request the surrender of profits obtained by the infringer through the unlawful use of the intellectual property. However, Dutch courts generally require the claimant to choose between claiming damages and seeking disgorgement of profits.
• Court-estimated damages. When precise calculation of damages is not possible, courts have the authority to estimate damages based on available evidence and reasonable assumptions.

How rights holders can best protect their intellectual property. Rights holders can strengthen their ability to enforce civil remedies by taking proactive steps to protect their intellectual property:

• First, they should ensure that their intellectual property rights are properly registered where registration is required, such as with patents, trademarks, and designs.
• Second, they should maintain thorough documentation of ownership, licensing agreements, and financial records, which may later be required to prove damages in litigation.
• Third, monitoring the market for potential infringement is essential. Early detection allows rights holders to take prompt legal action before the infringement causes significant economic harm.
• Fourth, businesses should use contractual protections such as confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and licensing contracts to control the use of their intellectual property.
• Finally, rights holders may cooperate with customs authorities to prevent the importation of counterfeit goods into the European Union.

Recent cases involving distribution and sale of counterfeit goods

Recent enforcement actions in the Netherlands show that authorities actively target the distribution and sale of counterfeit goods.

A notable example occurred in March 2026, when Dutch authorities discovered a large warehouse containing nearly 11,000 counterfeit designer items, including clothing, footwear, watches, and accessories imitating luxury brands such as Dior, Prada, and Louis Vuitton. The operation involved cooperation between customs authorities, local officials, and the Dutch Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD). The counterfeit products were seized and scheduled for destruction to prevent them from re-entering the market.

Authorities noted that large counterfeit operations can generate significant criminal profits and are sometimes linked to other crimes such as money laundering. Individuals involved in large-scale counterfeit trading may face up to four years of imprisonment or substantial fines under Dutch law.

Another relevant civil enforcement case occurred before the District Court of The Hague in 2025, where the court prohibited companies from distributing counterfeit versions of well-known alcoholic beverages, including Belvedere vodka and Glenmorangie whisky. The court ruled in favour of the trademark owners and barred the distribution of the counterfeit products in the Netherlands.

These cases demonstrate that both civil litigation by rights holders and criminal investigations by authorities are used to combat counterfeit goods.

Treatment of grey market (parallel import) goods

Grey market goods — also known as parallel imports — are genuine products sold outside the official distribution network of the brand owner.

Parallel imports within the European Economic Area. Under the EU principle of exhaustion of rights, products that are legally placed on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) by the rights holder or with their consent may be resold freely within the EEA. This means that traders may legally import and sell such products in the Netherlands without permission from the original manufacturer.

Therefore, the sale of grey market goods within the EEA is generally lawful and not subject to criminal penalties.

Parallel imports from outside the EEA. However, the situation is different for goods imported from outside the EEA.

If a product protected by a trademark is imported from outside the EEA without the authorisation of the rights holder, this may constitute trademark infringement. In such cases, the rights holder can bring civil proceedings and request remedies such as:

• damages;
• destruction of the imported goods; and
• recovery of legal costs.

Thus, while grey market trading inside the EEA is usually legal, unauthorised imports from outside the EEA may violate intellectual property rights.

Criminal liability for selling counterfeit goods

The sale and distribution of counterfeit goods can result in criminal liability in the Netherlands.

The primary criminal provision is Article 337 of the Dutch Criminal Code, which criminalises the intentional import, export, sale, distribution, or possession of counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks.

Under this provision:

• selling or distributing counterfeit products can result in up to one year imprisonment or a significant fine; and
• when committed professionally or on a commercial scale, penalties can increase to up to four years of imprisonment.

Criminal liability can apply not only to manufacturers but also to distributors, importers, and sellers involved in counterfeit supply chains.

At the same time, the Dutch legal system often treats intellectual property infringement primarily as a civil matter, with criminal prosecution typically reserved for serious or organised commercial infringements.

Other legislation affecting counterfeit products

In addition to intellectual property laws, several other legal frameworks in the Netherlands may apply to counterfeit products.

Consumer protection law. Counterfeit goods may violate consumer protection rules because they often mislead consumers regarding the origin, quality, or safety of a product. Under EU and Dutch consumer law, businesses are prohibited from engaging in misleading commercial practices or selling products that falsely claim to originate from a particular brand.

If counterfeit goods are marketed as genuine products, this may constitute deceptive trade practices, which can lead to administrative enforcement or civil liability.

Product safety legislation. Product safety laws can also apply to counterfeit goods, particularly when such products pose risks to consumers.

Examples include:

• electrical devices that do not comply with EU safety standards;
• counterfeit cosmetics or medicines containing harmful substances; and
• unsafe toys or electronics.

Under EU product safety regulations and Dutch consumer product laws, authorities can order unsafe products to be withdrawn from the market or recalled.

Customs and import regulations. Customs authorities play an important role in combating counterfeit goods entering the Netherlands.

Dutch customs can seize counterfeit products imported into the country, particularly when they are intended for commercial purposes. Importing counterfeit goods into the Netherlands is illegal and may result in seizure of the goods and financial penalties.

There is a limited exception allowing travellers to bring a small quantity of counterfeit goods for personal use, but goods imported by mail or for commercial purposes may be confiscated and may lead to prosecution.

Criminal enforcement

Unique benefits:

• Strong deterrence. The possibility of imprisonment or heavy fines discourages deliberate or large-scale infringement.
• Societal signal. Criminal prosecution communicates that IP violations are socially unacceptable.
• Powerful investigative tools. Authorities can use search warrants, seizure, and compulsory testimony, which is especially useful for organised or large-scale infringers.

Unique challenges:

• High burden of proof. Conviction requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is difficult in digital, cross-border, or complex IP cases.
• Resource-intensive. Criminal proceedings are costly and time-consuming for the state.
• Limited focus on restitution. Criminal sanctions primarily punish, but do not always compensate the rights holder directly.

Civil enforcement

Unique benefits:

• Lower burden of proof. Usually “preponderance of evidence,” making it easier for IP owners to enforce rights.
• Flexible remedies. Civil courts can order damages, injunctions, or corrective actions tailored to the infringement.
• Broad applicability. Civil action can be taken against individuals, businesses, and internationally, including across borders.

Unique challenges:

• Weaker deterrence for large-scale infringers. Civil fines may be minor compared to the infringer’s profits.
• Enforcement depends on compliance. Even with a judgment, obtaining compensation or compliance can be difficult if the defendant is uncooperative or abroad.
• Fragmented procedures. Complex infringements may require multiple civil actions, which can be cumbersome sometimes.

Counterfeiters now make use of advanced manufacturing techniques, including high-resolution printing, improved materials, and precise logo replication, which allow fake products to closely resemble genuine items. In addition, the rise of e-commerce and social media platforms has significantly enhanced distribution methods. Counterfeit goods are often marketed through professional-looking websites, online marketplaces, and encrypted messaging services, making detection more difficult and enabling sellers to reach a broad audience with relatively low risk.

In the Netherlands, there has been a clear shift from traditional brick-and-mortar counterfeiting toward online environments. While physical markets and informal street sales still exist, the majority of counterfeit activity has moved to online marketplaces and social networking platforms. As a result, there has been a noticeable increase in online sales of counterfeit goods, while physical retail of such goods has become less prominent and more localised.

There has also been a gradual rise in the use of live shopping and live-stream sales (TikTok and Instagram), although this trend is more pronounced globally than specifically within the Netherlands. Nevertheless, such formats are increasingly being adopted through social media platforms, where sellers promote and sell counterfeit goods in real time. Rights holders often face significant challenges in monitoring and enforcing their intellectual property rights in these contexts, as live streams are temporary, fast-paced, and difficult to track. This makes it harder to gather evidence and initiate timely enforcement actions compared to static online listings.

“Dupe culture” and “knockoff culture” have indeed contributed to the normalisation and increased demand for imitation products. Many consumers, particularly younger audiences, actively seek out cheaper alternatives that resemble branded goods without necessarily perceiving them as illegal or unethical. This cultural shift has blurred the line between acceptable “inspired” products and unlawful counterfeits, thereby facilitating the growth of counterfeit markets both online and, to a lesser extent, in physical retail settings.

In terms of legislation, there have been important developments at the European level that directly affect the Netherlands. Notably, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has introduced stricter obligations for online platforms, requiring them to take more responsibility in monitoring sellers, removing illegal content, and improving transparency. Marketplaces are now expected to implement more robust notice-and-takedown mechanisms, verify certain trader information, and act more swiftly against infringing listings. These measures aim to shift part of the enforcement burden from rights holders to the platforms themselves, thereby strengthening the overall framework for combating counterfeit goods in the digital environment.

In the Netherlands, there has been gradual progress in strengthening the position of rights holders who wish to adopt a more financially focused enforcement strategy against counterfeit sellers and networks. One important development is the increased effectiveness of civil enforcement mechanisms, particularly in obtaining and enforcing judgments against infringers. Dutch courts are generally considered efficient and supportive in IP matters, and rights holders can seek not only injunctions but also damages, profit disgorgement, and the recovery of legal costs. This makes civil litigation a viable tool for targeting the financial gains of counterfeiters.

In addition, there have been improvements in the ability to trace and seize assets. Rights holders can make use of measures such as pre-judgment attachments (conservatory seizures), which allow them to freeze bank accounts, goods, or other assets before a final judgment is rendered. This is particularly useful in counterfeit cases, where there is a high risk that assets may disappear quickly. Furthermore, enhanced cooperation with financial institutions and intermediaries, including payment service providers, has made it somewhat easier to identify financial flows linked to counterfeit activities.

In the Netherlands, several platforms are considered problematic in the context of brand protection, and they are regularly monitored in client brand protection strategies. Traditional e-commerce marketplaces such as Bol.com and Marktplaats often present issues with counterfeit goods, unauthorised resellers, and IP infringements. International platforms like Amazon and eBay also remain relevant due to cross-border sales that impact Dutch brands. Social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, are commonly exploited for the promotion of counterfeit products or fraudulent schemes, which necessitates active monitoring.

Over the past 12–18 months, new challenges have emerged from platforms like Vinted, which has seen an increase in the sale of counterfeit fashion items, and Wish, which continues to pose issues due to low-regulation international sellers. Additionally, AI-driven marketplaces and decentralised networks have begun to appear as areas of concern. For example, some peer-to-peer and NFT-related marketplaces, as well as certain AI-powered e-commerce or social selling apps, are increasingly being used to circumvent traditional enforcement measures, making brand protection more complex. These emerging technologies require proactive monitoring and adaptive enforcement strategies.

In the Netherlands, the .nl country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) is managed by SIDN (Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland), which provides an administrative dispute resolution procedure similar to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Disputes are handled by an independent panel, focusing on issues such as bad faith registration, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting. The procedure is generally faster and more cost-effective than court litigation and is specifically tailored to the .nl domain space.

Recent trends include:

• Pandemic-related domain names. There was a surge of registrations incorporating terms like COVID, corona, and vaccine, often associated with fraudulent or misleading content.
• Event-related and trending terms. Domains referencing current events, emerging technologies (e.g., meta, metaverse, NFTs), or popular campaigns are increasingly registered for both legitimate and opportunistic purposes.
• Counterfeit and fraudulent websites. An increase has been observed, particularly targeting e-commerce and healthcare products. Fake web shops often exploit new TLDs to appear legitimate.
• Use of new TLDs. The expansion of generic TLDs (.shop, .online, .store) creates more opportunities for fraudulent actors to register multiple deceptive domains quickly, complicating enforcement.
• Patterns. Fraudulent actors often incorporate country codes or well-known brand names into subdomains (e.g., brandname-nl.shop), or exploit slight misspellings of established trademarks.

Overall, while the .nl UDRP-like procedure remains effective for resolving domain disputes, the growth of new TLDs and the rapid registration of trending domains require continuous monitoring and proactive enforcement by rights holders.

In the Netherlands, there has been a noticeable increase in counterfeiting and brand abuse across social media platforms. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook continue to be heavily exploited for counterfeit goods, especially fashion, cosmetics, and electronics. Short-form video apps like TikTok are increasingly used for direct promotion of fake products, often linking to online shops or messaging apps for purchases.

Emerging channels such as live-commerce platforms have started to appear in the Dutch market, though they are not yet as widespread as in Asia. Some of these platforms, along with AI-driven social apps, are being tested by bad actors to automate product promotion, generate persuasive content, or create “shoppable” videos with minimal moderation.

Social media remains a critical tool for bad actors. For example, fake Instagram accounts frequently use influencer-style posts to advertise counterfeit products, and TikTok accounts use short, viral videos to drive traffic to private sales channels. Live-streaming events or “limited-time offers” are also increasingly leveraged to create urgency and avoid traditional detection methods.

Bad actors in the Netherlands employ several tactics to evade detection:

• Frequent account rotation. Creating new profiles when old ones are blocked.
• Use of private messaging or encrypted channels (WhatsApp, Telegram) to finalise transactions.
• Minimal public branding. Relying on private groups or invitation-only marketplaces.
• AI-generated content. Producing realistic but synthetic images or videos that avoid copyright detection systems.
• Short-lived promotions. Posting offers for only hours to minimise takedown opportunities.

Encrypted messaging apps like Telegram and WhatsApp are increasingly used as venues for illicit commerce. Private marketplaces, often hidden from search engines, allow sellers to bypass traditional enforcement. These channels are particularly attractive for high-value items like counterfeit electronics, luxury goods, and fashion.

Over the past 12 months, some platform policies have improved brand protection, including:

• TikTok and Instagram implementing faster reporting and automated takedown systems for counterfeit listings.
• AI-driven content recognition helping detect unauthorised use of brand images or videos.

The Netherlands, as an EU member state, is primarily guided by EU-wide AI regulation. Currently, there is no standalone Dutch national AI law, but existing legislation may apply depending on context.

The Dutch Bar Association (Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten) has issued guidance for lawyers regarding AI:

• lawyers may use AI tools, but they remain fully responsible for the advice and outputs generated;
• there is an emphasis on due diligence, including verifying AI-generated outputs before sharing with clients;
• transparency toward clients is recommended, particularly if AI tools assist in drafting legal documents or performing legal research; and
• confidentiality obligations under Dutch law remain fully applicable; using AI tools must not compromise client data.

This guidance is advisory rather than legally binding, but non-compliance could result in professional liability claims if errors occur.

The Netherlands has integrated AI considerations into existing privacy legislation, primarily the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Key aspects include, for example, lawfulness, transparency, and security.

In the Netherlands, dealing with deepfakes has become an increasingly relevant part of brand protection, particularly in sectors like luxury goods, entertainment, and corporate reputation. While deepfake incidents are not yet as widespread as traditional counterfeiting, their potential impact on brand image, consumer trust, and misinformation is significant.

Brands and protection teams typically take the following approaches:

• Monitoring and detection. Implementing AI-based monitoring tools to identify deepfake videos, images, or audio that misuse the brand or its representatives. Early detection is crucial because deepfakes can spread rapidly on social media and messaging platforms.
• Rapid response strategies. Developing predefined response plans to address detected deepfakes, including:
  • issuing public statements or takedown notices on social media platforms; and
  • contacting platforms or intermediaries to remove infringing content.
• Engaging legal remedies under copyright, trademark, or personality rights, depending on the content.
• Legal and regulatory action. While Dutch law does not yet have deepfake-specific legislation, remedies can be sought under:
  • copyright and trademark law, if content misuses protected material; and
  • personality rights and defamation law, particularly if the deepfake harms the reputation of individuals or the brand.
• Preventive measures. Some brands are proactively embedding watermarks, official verification, or other digital identifiers to distinguish authentic content from deepfakes.

In summary, the strategy for defending against deepfakes in the Netherlands focuses on rapid detection, coordinated platform takedowns, legal action where applicable, and proactive preventive measures, balancing speed with effectiveness to protect the brand’s reputation.

In the Netherlands, cryptocurrency and related technologies are primarily regulated under financial and anti-money laundering (AML) legislation, rather than through dedicated “crypto laws.” In addition, the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) is a (relatively) new European law. MiCA is intended to make the crypto market safer and more transparent. The law came into effect in the Netherlands on 30 December 2024.

The Netherlands enforces copyright protections under the Dutch Copyright Act (Auteurswet), which covers unauthorised reproduction, distribution, and public communication of copyrighted works, including streaming. In addition, EU directives, such as the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC) and the Digital Single Market Directive, are implemented nationally to regulate online content.

While there is no separate law specifically for streaming piracy, civil and criminal remedies are available for copyright infringement. Recent enforcement trends increasingly target streaming platforms that provide access to pirated content, including live broadcasts of sports, films, or TV shows.

Dutch courts have authority to issue site blocking injunctions against internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent access to pirated content.

Other remedies:

• Rights holders can pursue civil injunctions, damages claims, and seizure of equipment or domains used to host pirated streams.
• Criminal liability may apply to operators of large-scale piracy platforms, including imprisonment or fines.
• Cooperation with platforms and intermediaries, including hosting providers, payment processors, and advertising networks, is often used to disrupt revenue streams supporting piracy.

Rights holders and clients in the Netherlands are noticing an increase in QR code abuse, particularly in online phishing scams. Key trends include:

• phishing campaigns using QR codes to redirect users to malicious websites or fake payment portals;
• QR codes embedded in counterfeit product packaging or marketing material to trick consumers into providing personal or payment information; and
• social engineering campaigns exploiting QR codes on social media or email to distribute malware or steal credentials.

Brands are advised to implement consumer awareness campaigns, monitoring, and rapid takedown procedures for fraudulent QR codes, especially where these codes are linked to their products or services.

In the Netherlands, customs authorities (Belastingdienst Douane) have broad powers to control goods entering or leaving the country. This includes the ex officio ability to detain shipments suspected of containing counterfeit products, without a prior complaint from the rights holder.

Customs can:

• inspect shipments at ports, airports, and logistics hubs;
• detain, seize, and even destroy counterfeit goods; and
• cooperate with rights holders to verify authenticity and provide evidence.

Customs can act proactively or following a notification from a rights holder. Suspicious shipments are inspected, and if counterfeit goods are confirmed, customs can detain or seize them.

Costs are as follows:

• The rights holder typically bears the cost of detention, storage, and testing, unless agreed otherwise with customs.
• Destruction costs are generally covered by the rights holder if requested, though in some cases customs can carry out destruction under EU rules.
• Other potential costs include logistics, handling, and administrative fees.

Downsides

Small shipments or e-commerce parcels are sometimes harder to monitor.

Benefits

Customs action provides ex officio enforcement, preventing counterfeit products from entering the market and giving rights holders early intelligence on infringers, making it, as it were, a quick fix.

How the system has evolved

Over the past few years, the system has evolved through increased coordination with EU agencies, more efficient reporting procedures, and the adoption of risk-based targeting for shipments. Digitalisation and the use of data-driven methods have improved detection, particularly in e-commerce. Future changes, such as AI-driven risk profiling and digital customs initiatives, are expected to further strengthen enforcement, though they may also require additional cooperation and training for rights holders.

Customs maintains a close working relationship with other law enforcement agencies, including the Dutch police, public prosecutors, and the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD). In cases of large-scale or criminal importation of counterfeit goods, these agencies collaborate to investigate, prosecute, and prevent further infringements. Rights holders provide critical support by supplying product knowledge, evidence, and market intelligence, but formal enforcement is conducted by the authorities.

Through the border enforcement process, customs provides rights holders with information about importers, the origin of shipments, the type and quantity of goods, and shipment routes. This information can be used for civil enforcement, market monitoring, and strategic planning, but it cannot be publicly disclosed or used outside of intellectual property enforcement.

Rights holders can pursue several remedies against importers caught bringing counterfeit products into the Netherlands. These remedies include civil claims for injunctions, damages, and destruction of goods. In cases of large-scale or repeated infringements, criminal prosecution may also be pursued.

Training of customs and law enforcement personnel is an important part of the system. Rights holders are often actively involved in training programs, which focus on identifying counterfeit products, recognising packaging and labelling differences, and understanding emerging counterfeiting techniques. Brand involvement is highly valuable because customs and law enforcement cannot have expertise in every product category, and collaboration increases the accuracy and efficiency of seizure operations.

In the Netherlands, recent global and regional disruptions have had a noticeable impact on the enforcement and regulatory regime related to intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing geopolitical tensions in Europe, and supply-chain shifts have temporarily altered the priorities and capacities of enforcement authorities. For example, during the peak of the pandemic, customs and law enforcement resources were diverted to public health and safety measures, which led to delays in inspections and seizures of counterfeit goods. Some changes, such as increased attention to online marketplaces and e-commerce parcels, appear to be more permanent, as authorities continue to prioritise digital channels where counterfeit goods are increasingly distributed. Economic pressures and disrupted supply chains have also encouraged bad actors to seek alternative sources and distribution routes, which has shifted enforcement focus toward smaller shipments and cross-border e-commerce.

There have been observable shifts in the types of goods being seized or detained in the Netherlands in recent years. Authorities report notable increases in counterfeit luxury goods, fashion items, cosmetics, electronics, and consumer health products, particularly those that can be sold online with relatively low detection risk. The rise in counterfeit health and hygiene products during the pandemic was largely driven by high consumer demand and shortages in legitimate supply. Electronics, including headphones, phone accessories, and smart devices have also seen higher seizure rates due to increased e-commerce sales and global supply-chain disruptions. Additionally, counterfeit pharmaceuticals and supplements remain a high-risk category, influenced by both online demand and regulatory challenges in cross-border shipments. These trends highlight the evolving nature of counterfeiting, where global events and shifting consumer behaviour directly affect the types of goods targeted by infringers and the focus of enforcement authorities.