How to detect counterfeits of your brand on Wildberries and Ozon

Why it is hard to spot counterfeits on marketplaces

At first glance, it may seem that to identify counterfeits, it is enough to periodically enter a brand name into a marketplace's search bar and check the list of products returned. However, in practice, this method proves to be insufficiently effective because violators use various masking schemes, in particular:

• Changing the brand name Unscrupulous sellers intentionally distort the trademark name: they use similar spellings, change letters, add extra characters, or mention the brand only in the product description. In other words, instead of an exact match, various variations are used that are harder to detect with a standard search.

• Selling "analogs" disguised as the original A common scheme: violators use photos of the original product, brand identity, or descriptions, thereby creating the impression for potential buyers that the product was manufactured by the rightsholder.

• Quickly changing product listings and sellers Even if a violator receives a complaint, the listing can quickly disappear and reappear under a different SKU, name, or seller. This makes "manual" monitoring ineffective.

How to independently search for counterfeits on Wildberries and Ozon

You can increase the efficiency of manual checks by making them more systematic, for example:

• Check different spelling variations of the brand

Infringers often count on the fact that rights holders only monitor direct matches. Therefore, look not only for the exact brand name but also for variations that may evoke an association with it. For example, common misspellings, transliterations, abbreviations, similar word forms, and versions in both Russian and English.

• Analyze sellers

Unknown sellers without a sales history can be suspicious, especially those who suddenly list a large volume of goods. Other signs of counterfeit products include a lack of documentation, product listings with low-quality photos, or incomplete descriptions. Pay particularly close attention to sellers offering products at prices significantly lower than the brand's official price.

• Monitor the use of branded materials

As noted above, infringers often use original logos and branded images, or copy product listings from official sellers. Even if a product description is marked as an "analog" or "replica," the core issue remains the same: the customer receives a non-original product, and the rights holder suffers from negative customer feedback regarding low-quality goods associated with their brand.

• Monitor customer reviews

Reviews are one of the most underrated sources of information. Risk signals include complaints about low product quality, comments regarding discrepancies with the original, mentions of counterfeits, and complaints about packaging or labeling.

Why manual monitoring is often not enough

If a brand is present in multiple categories or its product range is updated regularly, manual monitoring for violations becomes extremely labor-intensive. For example, thousands of new products appear on Wildberries and Ozon every day, so checking all matches is time-consuming and, given potential masking techniques, becomes nearly impossible.

Furthermore, detecting a violation is only part of the challenge. To successfully protect a brand, it is crucial to properly document the signs of infringement and gather evidence; otherwise, the marketplace may refuse to process the claim.

What to do if you find counterfeit goods

After detecting a potential violation, it is important to act systematically.

1. Record evidence

Take screenshots and save links to product listings and descriptions, including price, SKUs, and photos; also record information about the seller. If the violation is serious, additional documentation may be needed for further legal support.

2. File a complaint with the marketplace

Both Wildberries and Ozon provide procedures for intellectual property protection. Usually, the rights holder needs to confirm rights to the brand (trademark) and describe the violation. However, practice shows that a formal complaint does not always lead to the quick removal of a listing, especially if the evidence base is poorly prepared.

3. Monitor for the reappearance of the product

Even after a listing is removed, the seller may post a similar product again. Therefore, brand protection is not a one-time task, but constant monitoring, including correct documentation of violations, handling complaints, etc.

For this purpose, automated solutions are more suitable than manual searches, and they are especially necessary when scaling a brand.

How to automate the search for counterfeit goods

It is obvious that the sooner a rightsholder detects an infringement, the lower the risk of losing sales, facing reputational issues, and seeing a decline in consumer trust in the brand.

Given that counterfeit goods on marketplaces do not disappear on their own, specialized solutions that allow brands not only to find potential infringements but also to support the protection process are more effective for companies with active sales.

For example, ZIPDetect helps automate the monitoring of Wildberries and Ozon, identify suspicious product listings based on various criteria, and manage complaints centrally. Legal support is an additional advantage: the rightsholder does not need to navigate all the stages of interacting with the platform themselves when professionals take on the task.

This approach is particularly relevant for companies that face the regular appearance of counterfeits and want to establish systematic brand protection while effectively safeguarding their intellectual property on marketplaces.

How many violations can be detected during systemic monitoring

The scale of the problem is well illustrated by the practice of brand monitoring using ZIPDetect. For example, while working with one of the major brands from March to June 2026, 3,529 suspicious product listings from 712 sellers were detected on Ozon, Wildberries, and Yandex Market.

After verification, violations were not confirmed in all cases. Complaints were filed against 302 sellers regarding 2,371 listings, while the remaining results were filtered out during the verification stage.

This indicator is important: automated monitoring does not mean automatically sending complaints for all found listings. The system allows for the collection of a wide array of potential violations, after which the results are verified, and cases with actual grounds for further action are identified.

Following the review of the submitted complaints, violations were resolved in approximately 78-80% of the listings. Thus, automation not only significantly increases the volume of detected offers but also allows for the organization of subsequent work with them in a systematic manner.

At the same time, it makes sense to conduct monitoring regularly. Deleting a single listing does not guarantee that a similar product will not reappear: a seller can create a new listing, change the product name, use a different designation, or post an offer from another account. Therefore, the indicator of protection effectiveness is not the number of listings deleted in one day, but the brand's ability to constantly detect new violations and monitor the outcome of complaint reviews.

Case study: what happens after the first wave of complaints

The effectiveness of combating counterfeiting can be assessed not only by the number of product listings removed, but also by how infringers’ behavior changes after the first complaints are filed by the rights holder.

A telling example is the monitoring of the Darwin sleep products brand on Wildberries in July-August 2026. During this period, ZIPDetect identified 2,602 suspicious product listings posted by several dozen sellers.

Following verification and the submission of complaints, 1,418 listings (54.8%) were removed from the marketplace. In another 1,034 listings, sellers ceased the unauthorized use of the brand. Thus, infringements were eliminated in 2,452 listings, or 94.8% of all identified violations.

However, another result is even more significant. After the first wave of complaints submitted in July 2026, the number of new infringements decreased 17-fold.

This effect demonstrates that anti-counterfeiting efforts can have not only a direct but also a preventive impact. When sellers understand that a rights holder regularly monitors the marketplace and responds promptly to infringements, listing new products that unlawfully use the brand becomes less attractive.

At the same time, a one-time check is still not sufficient. Even after a significant reduction in the number of infringements, new listings may appear again - including from previously identified sellers or new market participants. Therefore, after the first wave of complaints, it is important to continue monitoring and compare the number of new infringements with previous periods.

It is precisely the dynamics of these indicators that makes it possible to determine whether the protection strategy is actually working: if the number of new infringements gradually decreases while the rate of resolved violations remains high, the rights holder is not simply removing individual listings but systematically reducing the volume of unauthorized use of its brand on the marketplace.

How to evaluate the effectiveness of protection

When dealing with counterfeit goods, it is not enough to consider only the number of detected or removed listings. One of the main performance indicators is how systematically the rights holder controls the situation on the marketplace and whether the number of new violations changes after measures are taken.

Several key indicators can be used to evaluate the results.

1. Number of detected suspicious listings.

This indicator characterizes the scale of the problem and allows for assessing the monitoring coverage. The wider the brand's assortment and the more sellers operating on the platform, the higher the potential number of offers that need to be checked.

2. Share of confirmed violations.

Not every suspicious listing is a violation. Therefore, it is important to compare the total number of detected offers with the number of listings for which, after verification, there were indeed grounds for filing a complaint. This allows for evaluating not only the scale of the search but also the quality of the subsequent verification.

3. Number of eliminated violations.

This indicator reflects the practical result of the rights holder's work. Elimination can occur in different ways: a listing may be removed completely, or the seller may stop the illegal use of a trademark or other intellectual property object.

4. Share of repeat violations.

If, after removing listings, the same sellers regularly post similar products again, this indicates the need to strengthen control and change the strategy for dealing with violators. Therefore, it is important to track not only the listings themselves but also the sellers, associated accounts, and repeat postings.

5. Dynamics of new violations.

One of the most indicative criteria is the change in the number of new violations after the first wave of complaints is sent. If their number significantly decreases, this may indicate a preventive effect of the rights holder's work.

6. Response speed.

The less time passes between the detection of a violation and the filing of a complaint, the shorter the period during which the disputed product remains on sale. For large brands, where hundreds of new listings can appear simultaneously, speed becomes especially important.

Thus, effective monitoring is not just a tool for finding counterfeits. It allows for collecting statistics, tracking the dynamics of violations, and evaluating the results of specific measures. As a result, the rights holder is able to make decisions based not on individual cases, but on objective data regarding how the situation with the use of their brand on the marketplace is changing.