By Anette Rasmussen (ECTA Past President; Member ECTA Anti-Counterfeiting Committee, H. Lundbeck A/S) and Christina Kefala (Member ECTA Anti-Counterfeiting Committee, Malamis & Associates)

On 26 March 2026, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament reached a landmark agreement on the reform of the EU customs framework. This reform, described as the most significant since the establishment of the Customs Union in 1968, aims to modernise customs processes, strengthen enforcement capabilities, and address the exponential growth of e-commerce and increasingly complex global trade flows.

From an intellectual property and anti-counterfeiting perspective, the reform introduces several structural changes that are likely to have a profound impact on the detection and interception of infringing goods at the EU border.

A central element of the reform is the creation of a single EU customs data hub, which will serve as a unified digital interface for traders and customs authorities. By requiring economic operators to submit data only once, the system is expected to increase efficiency while simultaneously enhancing transparency and traceability across the supply chain. For enforcement purposes, this centralisation of data may significantly improve the identification of suspicious consignments, including counterfeit goods, through better risk analysis and data-driven targeting.

Complementing this, the establishment of a new EU Customs Authority, to be based in Lille, France, will support coordination among national customs offices and contribute to EU-wide risk management. The authority will analyse real-time trade data and help define priority control areas, thereby strengthening the EU’s capacity to respond to emerging risks, including those linked to counterfeiting networks and unsafe products.

The reform also directly addresses the challenges posed by the surge in small parcels linked to e-commerce, a well-known channel for counterfeit goods. The introduction of a handling fee for low-value consignments, coupled with clearer allocation of responsibility to online platforms and distance sellers as importers, represents a shift towards greater accountability in the digital marketplace. In addition, the introduction of penalties for non-compliant operators may act as a deterrent against systemic abuse of customs procedures.

Another noteworthy feature is the creation of a new category of “trust and check traders”, allowing highly compliant businesses to benefit from simplified procedures. While this may facilitate legitimate trade, it will be important to ensure that such simplifications do not inadvertently create vulnerabilities that could be exploited by bad actors seeking to introduce infringing goods into the EU market.

Overall, the reform reflects a clear intention to balance trade facilitation with stronger enforcement tools. For right holders, the increased use of data, improved coordination, and enhanced accountability of intermediaries are welcome developments that could significantly reinforce the fight against counterfeiting.

However, much will depend on the practical implementation of the new system, including the effectiveness of the data hub, the resources allocated to the EU Customs Authority, and the level of cooperation between national administrations.

Comment and question

The reform represents a decisive step towards a more integrated and data-driven customs enforcement framework in the EU, which is particularly timely in light of the growing sophistication of counterfeit distribution channels. If effectively implemented, it has the potential to substantially enhance the protection of IP rights at the border.

That said, an important question remains: will the increased reliance on centralised data and risk-based controls translate into sufficiently targeted and consistent enforcement across all Member States, particularly in the context of high-volume, low-value e-commerce shipments that currently pose the greatest challenge for right holders?

A further practical concern relates to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, where seized goods are frequently transferred to national health authorities under medicines legislation. In such cases, right holders often lose visibility entirely once goods leave the customs framework. It remains unclear whether the reform addresses this gap or whether the current “black box” will persist, thereby limiting effective enforcement and follow-up from an IP perspective.

-----

The views expressed are those of our members and not necessarily of ECTA as an association. The content has not been subjected to a verification process, the accuracy of the information contained in the article is responsibility of the authors.