Chrysanthou Mylona 1-3030, Panaghides Building, Episkopi, Cyprus, 350
Room 2a 14/f Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23–29 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong Kong
Intellectual property fraud recovery in Europe is achievable through civil litigation, EU regulatory enforcement, and criminal proceedings. Where a fraudster misappropriated a patent, trademark, copyright, or trade secret through fraudulent registration, unlicensed exploitation, or deliberate misrepresentation of ownership claims for IP infringement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment are available in all major EU jurisdictions. Where IP advisers, attorneys, or registration agents negligently failed to protect or enforce registered rights, professional negligence claims are available against them and their insurers. EU IP enforcement mechanisms through EUIPO, the EPO, and national IP courts provide dedicated enforcement channels alongside civil litigation. Recovery outcomes depend on the nature of the IP right, the type of fraud, the identifiability of the infringer, and the speed of action after discovery.
Intellectual property fraud in Europe encompasses deliberate misappropriation, fraudulent registration, or unlicensed exploitation of another party’s intellectual property rights for the purpose of extracting commercial value that belongs to the genuine rights holder.
It is distinct from inadvertent infringement, a legitimate licensing dispute, or a genuine disagreement over IP ownership. The legal basis for recovery is intent and misrepresentation: a party who knowingly registered another’s trademark, exploited another’s patent without authorisation, or misrepresented ownership of a copyright or trade secret has committed both an IP rights violation and, where the conduct was deliberate and financially motivated, fraud.
IP fraud targeting Asian businesses in Europe takes several distinct forms each requiring a different combination of EU IP enforcement mechanisms and civil litigation strategy. The EU’s harmonised IP framework including the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) provides enforcement tools not available in most other jurisdictions, making Europe one of the most effective environments for IP fraud recovery where proceedings are correctly structured.
A fraudster registers a trademark at EUIPO or a national IP office in the name of the Asian brand owner’s mark, logo, or product name before the genuine owner has registered in the EU. The fraudster then demands licensing fees, threatens infringement proceedings against the genuine owner, or attempts to sell the registration back to the genuine owner at an inflated price. In some documented cases, the fraudster uses the registered trademark to block the genuine owner’s goods at EU customs, generating leverage for settlement payments.
Trademark squatting is specifically addressed in EU trademark law a registration obtained in bad faith is invalidable under Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. Bad faith is established where the applicant knew of the genuine owner’s prior rights at the time of registration and registered with the intention of interfering with those rights.
A fraudster claims inventorship or ownership of a patent covering technology developed by the genuine inventor through fraudulent assignment documents, false employment agreements, or misrepresentation of contribution to the invention. The fraudster licenses or enforces the patent commercially, collecting royalties that belong to the genuine inventor. In documented cases involving Asian technology companies expanding into Europe, fraudulent patent assignments have been filed using forged signatures and fabricated employment records.
A fraudster registers or exploits copyright in creative works software, designs, music, literary works, or artistic content that belong to an Asian creator or business, without authorisation. Copyright registration in EU member states that maintain registration systems including Germany, France, and Spain is used by fraudsters to create apparent title to works they do not own. Unlicensed commercial exploitation of the works through licensing, publication, or distribution generates revenue that belongs to the genuine rights holder.
A fraudster obtains through theft, deception, breach of confidence, or corporate espionage commercially valuable trade secrets belonging to an Asian business operating in or trading with Europe, and exploits those secrets commercially. Trade secret misappropriation is specifically addressed by the EU Trade Secrets Directive (Directive 2016/943/EU), which harmonises civil remedies across all EU member states including injunctive relief, damages, and account of profits.
A fraudster manufactures, imports, or distributes counterfeit goods bearing an Asian brand’s trademarks, trade dress, or product designs in European markets. The counterfeits are sold as genuine products, generating revenue from the brand’s reputation without authorisation. EU customs enforcement under Regulation (EU) 608/2013 provides a specific mechanism for Asian IP rights holders to request detention of counterfeit goods at EU borders making customs enforcement a front-line recovery tool specific to this fraud type.
A fraudster presents as a legitimate IP licensing agent or rights management organisation collecting licensing fees from European businesses that wish to use an Asian brand’s IP, without remitting those fees to the genuine rights holder. The fraudster represents that they hold licensing authority over the IP when they have no such authority. The genuine rights holder discovers the fraud when European licensees refer to licence agreements they believe are legitimate but for which the rights holder has received no payment.
In 2022, law enforcement agencies in Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic uncovered a network engaged in the production and distribution of counterfeit drugs under the trademarks of well-known pharmaceutical companies. The counterfeit drugs were sold online and in illegal pharmacies. Hundreds of thousands of packages of medications were seized during the operation, and the estimated damages to copyright holders and consumers exceeded €10 million.
EUIPO administers EU trademark registrations and Community design registrations covering all 27 EU member states through a single registration. EUIPO provides:
The EPO administers European patent applications covering up to 44 contracting states. Opposition proceedings at the EPO available within nine months of patent grant allow genuine rights holders to challenge fraudulently obtained patents. Post-grant revocation proceedings and national patent court proceedings provide additional enforcement tools.
Directive 2016/943/EU harmonises trade secret protection across all EU member states providing civil remedies including injunctions to prevent use or disclosure of misappropriated trade secrets, account of profits from unlawful exploitation, and damages for losses caused by misappropriation. The Directive applies to all commercially valuable information that the rights holder has taken reasonable steps to keep confidential.
Asian IP rights holders can file an Application for Action (AFA) with EU customs authorities requesting detention of suspected counterfeit or pirated goods at EU borders. A single EU-wide AFA filed through EUIPO covers all 27 member states. Detained goods can be destroyed with the rights holder’s consent without requiring court proceedings making customs enforcement the fastest available mechanism for stopping counterfeit goods circulation.
EU IP infringement claims for trademark, patent, copyright, and design right infringement are available in the national IP courts of all EU member states. These claims provide:
Where the IP fraud involved deliberate misrepresentation false claims of ownership, fabricated assignment documents, or false inventorship claims fraudulent misrepresentation claims are available in all EU jurisdictions independently of the IP infringement claim. These claims entitle the genuine owner to recovery of all financial losses caused by the fraudulent misrepresentation including costs of registration proceedings, enforcement costs, and lost commercial opportunities during the period of fraudulent registration.
Under the EU Trade Secrets Directive, misappropriation claims are available for all unauthorised acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets including acquisition through theft, deception, breach of confidence, or industrial espionage. Claims provide injunctive relief, damages, and account of profits. EU member states are required to provide fast-track injunctive procedures for trade secret cases where urgent protection is required.
Where a licensed IP attorney, trademark agent, or patent adviser failed to register the genuine owner’s IP in a timely manner allowing a fraudster to register first or failed to file opposition proceedings within the required timeframe, professional negligence claims are available against them and their professional indemnity insurers.
Deliberate trademark counterfeiting, copyright piracy, and trade secret theft constitute criminal offences in all EU member states and in many cases engage EU-level enforcement through Europol’s Intellectual Property Crime Coordinated Coalition (IPC³). Criminal complaints unlock investigative tools premises searches, document seizures, financial intelligence requests that civil proceedings cannot access alone.
Registered IP rights EU trademarks, Community designs, and European patents provide the strongest enforcement position and the most accessible civil and administrative remedies. Unregistered rights copyright, unregistered design rights, and trade secrets are equally enforceable but require more extensive evidentiary proof of ownership and prior use.
Injunctive relief the most powerful immediate remedy in IP fraud cases is most effective when sought urgently, before the infringer can establish market presence, license the infringing IP to third parties, or dissipate profits. Opposition proceedings at EUIPO must be filed within three months of publication. EPO opposition proceedings must be filed within nine months of patent grant. Delay beyond these windows forecloses the most accessible administrative enforcement routes.
Named infringers with registered businesses, identifiable personal assets, and commercial operations in EU jurisdictions are the most viable civil defendants. Account of profits claims which recover the infringer’s gains rather than the rights holder’s losses are particularly valuable where the infringer has generated significant commercial revenue from the misappropriated IP.
Evidence of prior creation, use, and ownership including development records, publication dates, registration certificates, commercial use evidence, and creation timestamps is the foundation of IP fraud recovery claims. The earlier and more thoroughly IP ownership is documented, the stronger the recovery position against fraudulent registration or misappropriation claims.
Intellectual property fraud in Europe targets Asian businesses and creators at the point where their IP value is highest when entering new markets, establishing commercial partnerships, or expanding brand presence. The EU’s harmonised IP enforcement framework EUIPO invalidity proceedings, EPO opposition procedures, customs AFA enforcement, and the EU Trade Secrets Directive provides a comprehensive set of enforcement tools that are most effective when deployed promptly after discovery.
Bad faith trademark registrations are invalidable without time limitation at EUIPO but civil damages claims and injunctive relief are time-limited and most effective when sought urgently. Account of profits claims recover the infringer’s gains regardless of the rights holder’s own loss quantification making them the preferred civil remedy where the infringer has generated significant commercial revenue from misappropriated IP.
If your intellectual property rights have been misappropriated or fraudulently exploited in Europe, contact Veritas Advisory Group to have your legal position assessed.
Veritas Advisory Group provides professional legal and advisory services to victims of investment and trade fraud in Europe. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
