Can you import branded products from outside the EEA?

If you, as a business, import authentic trademarked products from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) without the explicit consent of the trademark owner, you expose yourself to significant legal risks. A judgement by the president of the Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court Brussels on Jan. 8, 2026, shows that judges can take swift and decisive action against such parallel imports and the sale of counterfeit goods through provisional measures and heavy penalty payments. This ruling also emphasizes that a mere presumption of tolerance by a local distributor is not a valid defense.

The facts

The case revolves around a conflict between the well-known energy drink producer Red Bull and the Belgian e-commerce platform My American Shop.

• My American Shop imports and sells exotic foods and beverages through both B2C and B2B channels in several European countries.
• Red Bull found that there were infringing products on the market, including counterfeit candies (“Red Bull Hard Candy”) and authentic Red Bull drinks imported into the EEA without permission from countries such as South Africa, Egypt, Japan and the United Kingdom.
• Belgian customs stopped several shipments destined for My American Shop in the fall of 2025 on suspicion of trademark infringement.
• In an earlier interlocutory ruling on Nov. 18, 2025, the presiding judge already imposed interim measures, including a cessation order and a requirement to share information about suppliers.
• However, My American Shop asked that these measures be reviewed based on new elements, notably the allegation that Jet Import, Red Bull's Belgian distributor, visited My American Shop's website as early as August 2024 and was thus aware of the imports.

The court's decision

The president, as in summary proceedings, denied My American Shop's requests to release or re-export the seized goods. At the same time, the president granted Red Bull's demand for a substantial increase in the periodic penalty payments for failure to properly comply with the earlier orders.

• No tacit consent: The court ruled that the mere knowledge of a distributor (Jet Import) did not amount to the unambiguous consent of the trademark owner (Red Bull) to import the products.
• Re-exports denied: My American Shop was not allowed to return the stopped goods to their country of origin (China or Egypt). The judge ruled that this would render the proceedings meaningless on the merits and risk the reappearance of the infringing goods in the EU.
• Increase penalties for lack of transparency: My American Shop had not complied in good faith with the obligation to expose origins and distribution channels. They submitted an auditor's report, but refused to share the underlying invoices. The judge subsequently increased the penalty payments to a maximum of 500,000 euros for not communicating the correct information.
• Extension of the cessation order: The order to cease use of the designated goods was extended until there is a final ruling in the proceedings on the merits, scheduled for September 2026.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This judgment constitutes an example of the application of Article 19(3) of the Judicial Code, which allows the court to order a preliminary measure at any stage of the proceedings or to provisionally regulate the state of the parties. The assessment is hereby made prima facie (at first sight), where a balancing of interests is central.

Regarding trademark rights and parallel imports, the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights is important. A trademark owner cannot oppose the further marketing of its products unless those products were first put on the market outside the EEA. Parallel imports from outside the EEA to within the EEA require the explicit and unambiguous consent of the trademark owner. The President's reference to the ruling Harman of the Court of Justice (ECJ Nov. 17, 2022, C-175/21) confirms that the threshold for “tacit consent” or estoppel is very high. The fact that a local distributor has knowledge of the infringement does not in any way mean that the foreign trademark owner waives its rights.

In addition, this decision illustrates the clout of the right to information in intellectual property infringements. An infringer cannot hide behind an aggregate report from an auditor. The court requires conclusive auditability against effective invoices to map the entire supply chain. Refusing to do so results, as here, in the forfeiture of severely increased penalties.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important practical implications for several market players:

• For e-commerce companies and importers: Buying branded products outside of Europe often seems like a lucrative opportunity, but carries huge risks. You cannot rely on the fact that the trademark owner will “know and tolerate it.” Without hard evidence of explicit permission to sell in the EEA, you risk customs seizures, expensive cessation procedures and sky-high penalties.
• For trademark owners: The ruling confirms that you have powerful weapons in your hands. Through summary proceedings, you can not only cause the sale to cease immediately, but also force the opposing party to expose its entire supplier network under penalty of fines. Attempts by the opposing party to quickly “export” the infringing goods to evade evidence or seizure are viewed critically by courts and often prohibited.
• Commitment to full transparency: If the court orders you to turn over invoices and supplier data, half-measures are not enough. Hiding sensitive commercial data behind an audit report is considered failure to comply with the judgment in good faith, resulting in financial penalties.

FAQ : frequently asked questions

What is parallel importing and is it legal?
Parallel importation is the importation of authentic branded products outside the official distribution channels of the brand owner. This is legal within the European Economic Area (EEA) due to the principle of free movement of goods. However, if you import branded products from outside the EEA (e.g. from Asia, the US or the UK) into the EEA without the explicit consent of the trademark owner, you are committing trademark infringement.

Can a judge force me to disclose my suppliers?
Yes. In the case of (suspected) infringement of intellectual property rights, the court may order you to turn over all documents, such as invoices and contact information of your suppliers and professional buyers, to the trademark owner. If you do this incompletely, high penalties may be imposed.

Can I return goods stopped by customs to my supplier?
No, usually not. Judges often refuse to re-export goods suspected of infringement. After all, the purpose of the proceedings is to remove the goods from trade; re-exporting creates the risk that the goods will re-enter the market through another route.

Conclusion

The fight against unauthorized parallel imports and counterfeiting is being pursued vigorously by the Belgian courts. Those who ignore the rules around the exhaustion of trademark rights risk not only the loss of their goods through customs seizure, but also heavy financial penalties and penalty payments for not cooperating with information orders.