The notice names one problem. Which route Amazon actually took decides what you are even able to argue.
For cases we accept: we identify the exact notice route, then build the correction, authorization, dispute, or rights-owner response that route requires.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On brand-misuse files we identify the notice route, then either correct the surfaces that are wrong or present the evidence that defends the brand as it stands.
Include the brand value Amazon contests, photographs showing the branding on the unit, and any ownership or manufacturing paperwork. Four short steps. Or Shamosh reads every intake.
Or Shamosh · Founder and lead strategist
5,500+ enforcement cases since 2016. Every intake is personally assessed before acceptance.
Send what you have, including prior DIY or agency appeals. We say what is viable in writing before you commit.
Questionnaire
If the questionnaire does not load, open intake on the account page.
* Across ASA’s accepted and fully managed enforcement cases (all notice types we take on), not brand misuse matters alone. Details under Proof.
Brand misuse arrives by several different routes, and the route decides the response. Sellers reach this page from notices that read similarly and are not the same event at all. Read which one you received before deciding what to send, because a correction filed against a rights-owner complaint does not reach the party who can withdraw it.
The remainder of this section works through the brand-field and generic-product branch, which is the most common of the five and the one where the catalog evidence decides the outcome. If your notice names a rights owner, the trademark complaint route is the one to read, because retraction and dispute are handled there.
On that branch the contested act is usually one of a short list. Changing the brand attribute on an existing ASIN. Using another brand's name to attract traffic. Listing a branded product as generic. Assigning a private-label brand to goods that do not carry it. Or creating content that misrepresents the manufacturer or a compatibility relationship.
Three questions decide the route, in this order:
What brand is permanently affixed to the product and its packaging? This is the source of truth everything else is measured against.
Where does the catalog carry a brand? Brand field, title, bullets, images, A plus content, and the backend search terms nobody checks.
Who submitted the contested value, and does the seller control it, or merely have an offer attached to it?
Two boundaries worth stating early, because both are common assumptions and both are wrong. Amazon's generic product policy limits repurposing a generic record into a branded one, so editing the brand field is not a route to a branded page. And Brand Registry enrolment is access, not permission: it does not by itself authorise changing an established ASIN's brand identity.
Each of these is a different catalog act with different evidence behind it. The notice rarely distinguishes them, so the response has to.
An established ASIN's brand attribute was edited. The seller may have done it, or a feed, a vendor, or another contributor. Amazon restricts changes to this attribute precisely because it is the field that decides what a record is.
The contribution history separates the cases and the storefront does not show it. Pull it before arguing about who is responsible, because the answer changes the route rather than the burden.
Another brand's name appears somewhere on the record with no defensible descriptive basis. The brand field itself is often correct here, which is why sellers are surprised by the notice.
Accurate compatibility language is generally permitted. What is being tested is placement and overall impression, not whether the word appears.
Either a branded product sits on a generic record, or a generic product has been assigned a brand. Both are identity mismatches, and where the dispute is really about the unit rather than the catalog entry, it belongs on misbranded product violations instead.
The move that reliably makes it worse is editing an established generic ASIN into a branded one. A genuinely branded product usually needs a correctly created record, which is an ASIN creation question.
The brand is claimed but not permanently affixed to the goods. Amazon's wording here is specific and worth reading literally: it asks for evidence that the product is permanently branded, not evidence that the brand exists.
The catalog names one party as the source and the product names another. This is usually a documentation gap rather than a dispute: the relationship is real but has never been written down in a form a reviewer can follow.
Write the chain out explicitly, from manufacturer to seller to brand to identifier to ASIN, with a document at each link. Every one of them should point at the same product.
Reviewers are looking for the authoritative brand and a corrected catalog. Most rejected responses supply ownership documents and leave the catalog as it was.
A trademark record is provided while the physical product does not display the brand being claimed. Those are different questions.
The brand field is fixed and the title, images, A plus content and backend search terms still carry the old value.
Another contributor is named, with no contribution history and no account of the seller's own offer against the ASIN.
Brand keywords remain in the backend terms while the response argues about the visible listing.
The brand field is changed again mid-review, outside the proper catalog or Brand Registry route, which reads as a second unauthorized act.
A general brand statement restated under several headings, never naming the specific catalog act Amazon contested.
Establish the brand the product carries, then find every place the catalog disagrees. The second half is where most files are incomplete.
Record the exact violation, the ASIN, the contested brand attribute, the marketplace, and both the current and historical listing content. Then name which of the catalog acts is actually at issue, because the evidence differs completely between a brand-field change and a competitor keyword.
Photograph the product and its packaging on every side, showing the brand as permanently affixed, along with the manufacturer, model and identifiers. This is the source of truth the rest of the file is measured against.
A brand can be wrong in more places than the brand field, and a correction that misses one is not a correction. Check each of these and record the current value against the target value:
The backend terms are the surface most often forgotten, and on a competitor-keyword case they are usually the whole allegation.
Where the seller is asserting the brand, the file needs the relationship rather than the registration alone: manufacturing or private-label agreement, brand ownership or authorization, the GS1 record, and invoices that name the same brand, model and identifiers.
Each document should point at the same product. A trademark proves a mark exists and who holds it. It does not prove the units in the fulfilment centre carry that mark, and that is the gap Amazon is usually testing.
Catalog work runs through prepared, uploaded, processed and live-verified. An accepted processing row is not a live page, and a live title is not a corrected backend. Report each surface in the state it is genuinely in. The same four states govern any detail page correction.
Where the mismatch is with the physical unit rather than the record, the lane is misbranded product violations. Where a protected mark is being asserted by its owner, it is trademark infringement, which has its own routes and its own evidence.
If a link in the chain does not exist, say so. A stated gap can be worked with; an authorization letter written for the occasion cannot be withdrawn from the case log.
Scoped historical outcomes on cases we accepted and fully managed. One seller voice below; deeper galleries live on account reinstatement.
Population: historical cases ASA accepted and fully managed (we prepared the compliance response and ran follow-ups in Seller Central). The figure combines reinstatement and restoration work across notice types in that managed population, not brand misuse matters alone. Declined intakes and self-serve template buyers are not in the rate.
Success: reinstatement or restoration of the privileges Amazon had restricted for that file (account, listing, verification, funds, or related, depending on the case). Amazon decides every outcome; the rate is not a guarantee for future cases.
Review: the underlying records were independently reviewed. Verified as of .
More methodology context and galleries: account reinstatement proof.
“In less than 24 hours after the appeal, my account was reactivated with all products available for sale.”
More outcomes and video proof: account reinstatement proof.
For sellers who already have the Performance Notification. Broader questions: full FAQ library.
If Amazon flagged brand misuse or locked the brand field, start with the questionnaire.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
