Direct answer: A takedown that works contains five things: your trademark registration details, the exact listing URLs, side by side proof of the infringing use, evidence of confusion or counterfeit where you have it, and a clear statement of the relief requested. Marketplaces act fastest on complete, verifiable packs because their reviewers can decide without a second round of questions.
Brands often experience marketplace enforcement as a lottery: one listing vanishes in a day, an identical one survives three reports. The difference is rarely the platform's mood. It is the completeness of what was filed.
This guide defines the evidence pack that professional enforcement teams use, walks the workflow from detection to removal, and covers the escalation path for listings that survive a correct first filing.
Start with rights: registration numbers, the mark as registered, and the goods it covers. Reviewers verify rights first, and a filing that makes them search for the registration is already slowing down.
Then the listing evidence: exact URLs, seller identity, screenshots with dates, and the specific elements that infringe, matched against your registration. Add confusion or counterfeit evidence where it exists, test purchase results being the strongest form, and finish with the precise action requested for each URL.
Packs are only as good as the listings they target. Monitoring should sweep marketplaces for your marks, distinctive product names, and image matches on a schedule, with finds logged before they are filed so repeat sellers become visible across reports.
Prioritize by harm: counterfeit goods and listings using your brand name to sell competing products outrank gray market genuine goods and sloppy keyword use. Filing in priority order keeps reviewer goodwill and team time pointed at the losses that matter.
Every major marketplace runs a brand portal that outperforms generic report forms: verified rights on file, bulk submission, and status tracking. Enrolling in the portal for each platform you sell on is unglamorous work that pays for itself in the first enforcement round.
File one seller's listings together with the connection between them noted. Reviewers who can see that twelve listings are one operation make different decisions than reviewers who see twelve unrelated complaints, and repeat seller identification is what unlocks account level action.
Listings survive for identifiable reasons: the reviewer found the rights unclear, the use arguable, or the evidence thin. Read the refusal for which one it was, repair exactly that gap, and refile with the addition noted rather than submitting the same pack louder.
For counterfeits and repeat operations, escalation runs through the platform's brand protection team and, where safety or scale warrants, through payment processors and law enforcement referrals. Keep the paper trail from every step; it is the asset that makes each escalation cheaper than the last.
Related reading: Shopify Counterfeit Reporting: How Brands Get Infringing Stores Removed, Amazon Brand Registry Enrollment: Requirements and What It Unlocks, and Recording Your Trademark With Customs: Stopping Counterfeits at the Border.
Complete filings through brand portals commonly resolve in days, and straightforward counterfeit listings often faster. Filings through generic forms, or packs missing registration details, stretch into weeks or stall entirely. Speed is mostly a property of the filing, not the platform.
For most brand portals, yes, a registration or a pending application in some programs. Copyright in your photos and text offers a separate, faster route for listings that copy your images or descriptions verbatim, which counterfeiters frequently do. Brands without registrations should file for one; enforcement without it is permanently uphill.
A test purchase is a documented buy of the suspect item, preserved unopened or photographed in detail, proving the listing delivers counterfeit or infringing goods. It converts an argument about a listing into physical evidence, and platforms and courts both treat it as the strongest proof available.
For apparent counterfeits and organized sellers, no: file through the platform, where contact can tip off stock movement and achieves nothing. For what looks like a genuine reseller or an honest mistake by a small seller, a direct notice sometimes resolves it faster, but document everything either way.