Filing a right holder's complaint with a marketplace: effective or not?

Marketplaces have become one of the key sales channels, but along with the growth of e-commerce, the number of intellectual property rights violations has also increased. Rights holders regularly encounter counterfeits, illegal use of trademarks, copying of product listings, and the sale of goods without permission.

The first thing that comes to mind when a violation is discovered is to file a complaint with the marketplace. But how effective is this really? Is the listing always removed? And why does a complaint work quickly in some cases, while in others, the violation persists for months?

Let's examine how the complaint mechanism works on Wildberries and Ozon and what a rights holder can realistically expect.

How the appeal algorithm works on the marketplace

Most major marketplaces are interested in fighting counterfeit goods, at least due to reputational and legal risks.

Generally, the process looks like this:

1. The right holder discovers a violation;

2. Prepares materials confirming the violation and the right holder's rights to the trademark or other intellectual property object;

3. Submits a corresponding complaint to the marketplace;

4. The platform reviews the materials and makes a decision: restrict the product listing's visibility, delete the listing, or reject the complaint.

There is a common belief that a marketplace automatically removes any information about counterfeit goods after a right holder's request. However, this is not entirely true.

Usually, the appeal process works most effectively in the following scenarios:

• Obvious use of someone else's trademark

If a seller directly uses a registered brand without the right holder's permission - for example, by listing a product under someone else's trademark or using a logo in the product listing - the probability of the listing being removed is usually high. However, success depends on the correctness of the request (description of the essence of the violation) and the completeness of the evidence base collected by the right holder.

• Sale of obvious counterfeits

If a product visually imitates original products and misleads the buyer, the platform often reacts faster. In this case, the evidence base can be supplemented with customer reviews about the fake, differences in packaging, non-compliance of characteristics with the original product, etc.

• The complaint is legally correctly drafted

Even an obvious violation sometimes remains without result due to an incorrectly drafted complaint. Marketplaces process a large number of requests, so formal logic works strictly: insufficient evidence leads to rejection or lack of reaction. Correct documentation of the violation and structured argumentation significantly increase the chances of the listing being removed.

Thus, despite existing protection mechanisms, right holders often face limited effectiveness. This is influenced by the following factors:

• Violations are difficult to prove

Not every case is direct counterfeiting. For example, a seller may not specify the trademark in the title or may sell the product as an "analog" or "compatible." In such situations, it is more difficult for the marketplace to make a clear decision, especially if the violation is framed in a non-obvious way;

• Sellers adapt quickly

Even after a listing is removed, the problem may return: the seller creates a new listing, changes the name or SKU, or uses a different account. For the right holder, this turns into a constant game of "catch-up."

• Complaints require time and resources

"Manual" work with violations is rarely limited to a single application. It is necessary to monitor for new listings, record evidence and collect documents, monitor the status of requests, and complain again in case of recurrence.

Wildberries and Ozon: do complaints work the same way?

While both platforms provide protection mechanisms, their approaches may differ.

On Wildberries, rights holders often note that response times can depend on the completeness of the documentation and the nature of the infringement. Complaints regarding obvious counterfeiting are typically processed faster than disputed cases involving indirect brand usage.

Ozon traditionally places more emphasis on rights verification procedures and the evidence base. Furthermore, the quality of the submission directly impacts the likelihood of a positive outcome.

What increases the effectiveness of complaints

To increase the likelihood of removing violations, it is important for the right holder to establish a systematic process.

1. Constant monitoring: the faster a disputed listing is detected, the lower the risk of scaling counterfeit sales.

2. Proper documentation of evidence: correctly recording signs of violation, seller data, product listing change history, etc., helps avoid rejections of complaints.

3. Centralized handling of appeals: when violations become numerous, it is important not just to find them, but to manage the entire process - specifically, tracking complaint statuses and relistings, interacting with platforms, etc.

This is why it is relevant to use specialized services, such as ZIPDetect, which not only track the appearance of counterfeits on marketplaces but also systematically work with complaints and provide full legal support.

In conclusion, effective brand protection on marketplaces is built on three elements: regular monitoring, competent documentation of violations, and a structured process for handling complaints. Only then does the fight against counterfeiting become a manageable process rather than a one-off reaction.