The goods are genuine and the complaint can still be right, because it is about the mark rather than the product.
For cases we accept: the complaint and the asserted mark, where the challenged use actually sits, and whether the route is rebuttal, correction, authorization or retraction.
A real person reads your case and replies within about an hour.
ASA Compliance Group operates Amazon Sellers Appeal. On trademark files we identify the challenged use and run the route in Seller Central. Legal conclusions belong with qualified counsel.
Include the complaint identifier, the mark asserted, and where the brand appears on your listing and product. 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 trademark matters alone. Details under Proof.
This page is for the seller who received the complaint. Amazon normally identifies the affected listing, a complaint identifier, the rights owner or its agent, and the alleged issue. The allegation may concern a protected word, a logo, packaging, compatibility wording, an image, product branding, or authenticity framed through trademark rights.
Amazon acts here as a marketplace enforcement channel. It is not making a final court determination of infringement, and a removal is not a finding that one occurred. That matters practically: it means the record can still be built, and it means a removal is not something to concede to.
Four routes, and the record decides which is available rather than the seller's preference:
The rights owner withdraws the complaint through Amazon's channel. Direct when it is available, and it is not always.
The use is permitted, descriptive, or the complaint identifies the wrong product. Needs the exact use documented.
A licence or distribution right covering this product, territory, marketplace and dates. Scope is everything here.
The use was not defensible. Remove or rewrite it across every surface and say so plainly.
The distinction that catches most sellers: invoices address authenticity and chain of supply, not trademark use. A genuine product can be sourced perfectly and still create a trademark issue in how the mark appears. Amazon's trademark policy for sellers sets out the concepts; the legal analysis is jurisdiction-specific and belongs with counsel. Where the underlying question is whether the goods can be traced at all, that is inauthentic product violations, a different burden with different documents.
Finding it precisely is most of the work, because the complaint often names the listing rather than the sentence.
A brand name used in the written listing. Sometimes to describe genuine goods, sometimes for search traffic, sometimes inherited from a supplier's copy without anyone considering it.
The distinction that matters is whether the use identifies the product's source or describes something about it. That is a legal question with a jurisdiction-specific answer, which is why this page describes the analysis rather than concluding it.
The mark appears on the product, its box or the listing images. Where the goods are genuine this can be entirely ordinary; where they are not, or where the packaging was altered, it is the allegation itself.
Photograph what actually ships, on every side. A complaint about appearance cannot be answered with a description of appearance.
Naming another brand to say what your product works with. Frequently legitimate and frequently done in a way that invites the complaint, because the wording implies more than compatibility.
Where the brand field itself carries the other brand, the lane is brand misuse and the evidence is different.
The products are authentic and the owner objects anyway. This is where material differences, territorial rights, altered packaging and warranty differences enter, and where genuineness stops being a complete answer.
Where the objection is really about the market the goods were made for, it is parallel import; where it is that the goods are not what they appear to be, it is a counterfeit claim. Both have their own evidence.
Several complaints, or the same complainant across several listings. The unit of work is each listing and each complaint identifier, with one consistent position across them, because inconsistency between responses is itself a finding.
Reviewers are looking at how a mark was used. Most rejected responses prove where the goods came from.
Sourcing records sent where the complaint is about how the mark appears in the title, images or packaging. Different questions.
“We bought them legitimately” offered where the complaint is about material differences, territorial rights, altered packaging or the specific use alleged. Ownership of the goods does not answer any of those.
Infringement accepted when the complaint may be factually wrong, procedurally defective, or aimed at a different product.
An emotional message sent before the complaint record is preserved and the posture chosen, which can create admissions or a demand.
Registration and enrolment advice offered by a seller who is accused, which answers the opposite question to the one asked.
A plan of action that implicitly admits the allegation when the seller's actual position is that it is wrong.
Establish the allegation, then the use, then the route. The route is a conclusion rather than a starting point.
Record the notice, the complaint identifier, the listing, the rights owner's identity, the asserted mark, its registration number if supplied, and the exact marketplace. Preserve all of it before editing anything, because the listing state at complaint time is part of the record.
Then locate the challenged use precisely. Current and historical listing text, images, enhanced content, packaging, product photographs and backend terms, with the specific location of the mark identified rather than described.
Check the asserted mark rather than assuming it: status, ownership, the goods and services it covers, and the jurisdiction. A mark can be registered for goods unrelated to the product, held by someone other than the complainant, or lapsed.
Read it carefully rather than mechanically. What the register says and what it means for this product are different, and the second is where counsel earns their fee.
A licence, distribution agreement or authorization letter is only as good as its scope: the named territory, the product, the marketplace, the dates, and whether the issuer had authority to grant it. Amazon's expectations for these documents are specific, and rejections here are usually about authority and authentication rather than about the appeal's wording.
Trace the chain to the recorded owner. An authorization from an intermediary who cannot show their own right to grant it establishes nothing, and that gap is what most rejected letters have in common.
Then choose: retraction, non-infringement, authorization or correction. Where correction is right, do it across every surface and say plainly what changed. Where the position is a dispute, do not send a corrective plan that concedes it.
The boundary is worth stating on the page and in the file. Assembling the notice, the product, the registry record and the use comparison is operational work. Turning those into a conclusion about infringement is legal work, and it should be reviewed by qualified counsel before it is sent.
Correction and complaint resolution are different events. Correcting a listing may resolve an Amazon-generated suspected-use warning, and it makes the listing compliant going forward. It does not automatically remove a rights-owner complaint already recorded in Account Health: that needs retraction by the complainant, or a dispute where the claim is wrong. And if the complaint is about how the product looks rather than about a mark, it is a design-patent matter with its own routes: see design patent complaints.
If you have already contacted the complainant, include that correspondence. It shapes what is still available, and finding out later is worse than reading it now.
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 trademark 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 received a trademark complaint against your listing, start with the questionnaire.
Listing removed rather than mis-described: listing reinstatement. Other notice names: all suspension types.
