Why cosmetic brands particularly suffer from counterfeiting on marketplaces

Why cosmetics have become one of the main targets for counterfeiters

Cosmetic products have several characteristics that make them attractive to counterfeiters.

First, there is mass demand. Popular skincare products, makeup, perfumes, and hair care items sell quickly, and recognizable brands have an established customer base.

Second, it is often difficult for consumers to distinguish original products from counterfeits on their own. Dishonest sellers use similar packaging, images, descriptions, and product listing designs, creating the impression that the goods are being sold by an official retailer.

Finally, the beauty segment is price-sensitive. When a buyer sees a product from a familiar brand at a significantly lower price, some consumers may opt for the better deal without verifying the product's origin.

As a result, popular cosmetic brands are among the most frequent targets for counterfeiters.

How counterfeit cosmetics are dangerous for a brand

In some categories, counterfeiting primarily means a loss of sales. In cosmetics, the consequences are usually broader.

The main risk is related to consumer safety. Counterfeit products may contain unknown ingredients, allergens, or prohibited substances, or they may simply fail to meet quality standards. Consumers may experience skin irritation, allergic reactions, or a lack of the expected effect from using the product.

However, in most cases, the negative experience is associated not with the specific seller, but with the brand indicated on the packaging. Consequently, the reputation of the rights holder is put at risk, even though they have no connection to the production of the counterfeit.

Thus, negative reviews and complaints lead to a decline in consumer trust and gradually begin to affect the sales of original products.

Wildberries and Ozon: why selling on marketplaces complicates control

Marketplaces have made purchasing cosmetics more convenient, but they have unintentionally complicated the task of monitoring for rights holders.

This is because new sellers and thousands of new product listings appear on large platforms every day. Among them, there may be offers involving the illegal use of a trademark, the copying of visual materials, or the sale of products of unknown origin. The main challenges for brands are linked to several factors.

First, high competition encourages price dumping. Dozens of offers for the same brand can exist on a single platform simultaneously, making it difficult for the buyer to determine which seller actually represents the original product.

Second, product listings scale rapidly. If a counterfeit product sells and receives positive reviews, it can occupy more prominent positions in the marketplace's search results.

Third, violators adapt quickly. Even after a disputed listing is removed, the product may reappear under a new seller, with a modified name, a different photo, or an updated description.

Not only counterfeits: the risk of parallel imports

Parallel import remains a separate issue for cosmetic brands. Unlike counterfeit goods, such products may be authentic but are imported without the involvement of the right holder's official distribution channels.

For businesses, this creates different risks: it is more difficult to control storage conditions, service quality, the availability of official support, and product compliance with the requirements of a specific market.

For the consumer, the difference between an authentic product from an unofficial channel and a counterfeit often remains unnoticeable. However, when problems arise, all the negative feedback is often associated specifically with the brand.

Therefore, monitoring trademark usage and tracking product distribution methods become a vital part of brand protection.

Why brands find out about the problem too late

Many cosmetic companies only discover counterfeits after the first negative signals appear. Information often comes from customers: "The scent has changed," "The texture is different," "The packaging looks different," or "I had a reaction after using it." By that point, however, the counterfeit product may have already been on sale for several months.

In addition to direct financial losses, the company faces further consequences: the ratings of original product listings decline, the number of returns increases, and customers begin to doubt the brand's quality.

In effect, the company begins to lose its audience's trust even before it gains a full understanding of the scale of the problem.

How to build systemic protection for a cosmetic brand

Effective protection against counterfeiting begins long before mass complaints arise, not after.

First and foremost, it is crucial for a brand to ensure the legal protection of its assets: register trademarks, monitor the use of brand identifiers, and track potential risks.

The next stage is the continuous monitoring of marketplaces. This allows for the rapid identification of suspicious product listings, unknown sellers, and other signs of potential infringement. Once a problem is identified, it is important not only to document the violation but also to properly organize the follow-up work: prepare a complaint, oversee its review, and track any relistings.

To achieve this, many companies use specialized brand protection platforms. For example, ZIPDetect combines digital platform monitoring, complaint management, and legal support, helping rightsholders establish a unified response process for infringements.

What practice shows: the scale of violations and the impact of monitoring

ZIPDetect's practice shows how quickly the number of violations can grow if a brand does not control marketplaces systematically. Over several months of monitoring for specific brands, thousands of listings with potential violations and hundreds of sellers were identified.

For example, monitoring Dreame from March to June 2026 revealed 3,529 listings from 712 sellers. In March, the system detected 1,047 listings from 175 sellers; in May, it was 1,348 listings from 372 sellers; and in June, 1,134 listings from 274 sellers.

Violations were distributed across several platforms at once. In March, 496 listings were identified on Ozon, 285 on Wildberries, and 266 on Yandex Market. In May, there were 640 on Ozon, 252 on Wildberries, and 456 on Yandex Market. In June, the majority of violations occurred on Ozon—905 listings—while another 226 were found on Yandex Market.

At the same time, not every listing found automatically becomes grounds for a complaint. After additional verification, some violations are filtered out. In the case of Dreame, complaints were filed against 302 sellers regarding 2,371 listings.

Another example is the Darwin brand. In July 2026, 2,547 listings from 96 sellers were discovered, with 2,464 listings located on Wildberries. In August, the number of newly identified violations dropped to 147 listings from 13 sellers.

Thus, after the first wave of complaints, the flow of new violations decreased 17-fold.

This result demonstrates an important feature of brand protection on marketplaces: the task is not only to find and remove existing violations. Consistent processing of complaints can also influence future seller behavior, reducing the number of new violations.

Meanwhile, the scale of monitoring is constantly growing. To date, ZIPDetect's practice includes more than 6,000 identified listings and over 800 infringing sellers.

This is particularly relevant for cosmetic brands: a large number of sellers, the high speed at which new listings appear, and the presence of products on multiple marketplaces simultaneously make manual control labor-intensive. Automated monitoring allows for regular platform checks, identification of new violations, and, once confirmed, a transition to systematic processing.

As a result, brand protection transforms from a one-time reaction to individual cases into a continuous process: monitoring → verification → complaint → result control → re-monitoring.

Why automated monitoring is becoming a necessity

The larger a brand and the broader its presence on marketplaces, the more difficult it becomes to manually monitor every violation.

Employees must analyze a vast number of product listings, compare offers, verify sellers, and regularly perform the same repetitive tasks.

Automated monitoring significantly simplifies this process: it constantly tracks the situation on the online platform, promptly identifies potential violations, and systematizes information, allowing for a faster transition to protecting infringed rights.

This is particularly important for beauty brands, as counterfeit products affect not only sales but also the company's primary asset—customer trust.

Conclusion

Cosmetic brands are at particular risk when it comes to counterfeiting on marketplaces. Unlike many other product categories, the problem here is rarely limited to financial losses. Counterfeits can compromise consumer safety, erode brand trust, and cause long-term reputational damage. Therefore, today, protecting a cosmetic brand is not just a legal task, but an integral part of business management.

The sooner a company establishes systemic control over its brand usage in the digital environment, the higher the likelihood of preserving sales, reputation, and consumer trust.