De Minimis Is Gone: The New IP Enforcement Playbook for Cross-Border E-Commerce

For e-commerce brands selling across borders, the ground has shifted in a way that is easy to read as a purely logistical or tax story. It is not. The suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment and the broader tariff environment have direct consequences for cross-border IP enforcement and brand protection — and the brands that treat this as only a customs problem are the ones counterfeiters are counting on.

This guide explains what changed, why it is an IP issue as much as a trade issue, and the concrete brand-protection steps to take now.

What de minimis was — and what changed

For years, low-value shipments entered many markets duty-free under de minimis rules. A parcel under a set value could clear customs without duties and with minimal formality. That exemption quietly powered the explosive growth of direct-to-consumer cross-border parcels — the flood of inexpensive goods shipped straight to shoppers’ doors.

That era is ending. In the US, de minimis treatment has been suspended, and as of February 28, 2026, affected shipments moved to full ad valorem duty treatment — duties assessed on the value of the goods based on country of origin. The pattern is global: major markets including the EU and several Asian economies have moved to eliminate or tighten small-parcel exemptions, layering on duties, VAT, and per-item handling fees. Industry estimates put the increase in operating costs for cross-border sellers in the range of a quarter to nearly half, depending on the lane.

Why this is an IP problem, not just a trade problem

Counterfeiters are opportunistic. When they see a brand pulling back on enforcement, entering new sourcing regions under cost pressure, or distracted by falling international sales, they move fast — on the assumption that you are too stretched to fight back. Three dynamics make the current moment especially risky.

• Higher prices push consumers toward cheaper alternatives, including counterfeits, particularly on anonymous marketplace listings where the seller is hard to trace and the transaction is easy to hide.
• Supply-chain relocation creates protection gaps. If you move manufacturing to a new country to dodge tariffs, you need to confirm you actually hold trademark protection there — filing gaps in new sourcing territories are common, and rights are territorial.
• Enforcement attention gets diluted. As customs authorities pour resources into duty collection, oversight of counterfeit flows can loosen, and small consignments routed through multiple hubs are designed to slip past detection.

There is also a grey-market dimension. Tariff differentials and price gaps between markets encourage parallel imports and diversion — authentic goods moving through unauthorized channels — which erode brand control and pricing even when the goods themselves are not fakes. Both counterfeiting and diversion tend to rise in exactly these conditions.

The tariff-era brand-protection playbook

Here is the practical program to run this year. None of it is exotic; the value is in doing it deliberately and continuously rather than reactively.

Step 1: Record your IP with customs

Customs recordation is often your first and most cost-effective line of defense. Recording your trademarks (and, where available, copyrights) with customs authorities — in the US, the EU, and other high-exposure markets — lets border officials profile risk and detain or seize suspected counterfeits before they enter commerce. Prioritize the markets with the highest revenue exposure and the highest infringement incidence, and treat recordation as an ongoing security operation rather than a one-time administrative task.

Step 2: Close filing gaps in your real footprint

Map your trademark filings against where you now manufacture, warehouse, and sell — including any territories you have shifted into because of tariffs. A mark registered only in your home market gives you little leverage against infringement or diversion abroad. This is the single most common gap we see when brands reconfigure their supply chains under cost pressure.

Step 3: Monitor marketplaces and domains continuously

Integrate platform analytics with market-investigation data to catch repeat infringers and trace them upstream to their suppliers. Watch the major marketplaces, infringing domain names, and social accounts promoting fakes. Detection is the engine that makes takedowns and seizures possible — you cannot enforce against what you cannot see.

Step 4: Partner with the platforms

Major marketplaces increasingly run brand-protection programs with direct enforcement channels, and many now collaborate with customs and law enforcement to identify bad actors. A direct line to platform enforcement teams can dramatically speed the removal of counterfeit listings and, in the strongest cases, help drive repeat offenders out of the supply chain entirely.

Step 5: Audit your supply chain

Go beyond filings. Regular supply-chain audits and digital tracking reduce the vulnerabilities — diverted goods, grey-market leakage, unauthorized production runs — that infringers exploit at every stage from manufacture to retail. New suppliers and new routes introduced to manage tariffs are exactly where new vulnerabilities appear.

A quick self-assessment

If any of these describe your business, it is time to revisit your brand-protection strategy:

• ☐  You have shifted suppliers or production hubs to mitigate tariffs.
• ☐  You have cut back on IP enforcement spend under margin pressure.
• ☐  You sell on marketplaces where you do not actively monitor for counterfeits.
• ☐  You have expanded into markets where you have not confirmed trademark coverage.
• ☐  You have not recorded your marks with customs in your top-exposure countries.
• ☐  You are seeing pricing pressure or listings that suggest grey-market diversion.

The bottom line

The end of de minimis and the tariff squeeze are reshaping cross-border commerce, and the IP consequences are real: more counterfeits, more grey-market activity, and more exposure for brands with gaps in their protection. The brands that come through this stronger will not just be the ones that negotiate better sourcing deals — they will be the ones that kept their enforcement posture tight while competitors let theirs slip. If you need a tariff-era brand-protection review — customs recordation, filing-gap analysis, and a monitoring and enforcement plan — that is precisely the work we do for cross-border brands.

---

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about IP strategy and should not be relied upon as legal advice. IP laws vary significantly by jurisdiction and every business situation is unique. Consult qualified counsel about your specific circumstances.