This article is a fictionalized instructional analysis based on typical scenarios and does not refer to any real case.
The mature playbook for e-commerce counterfeiting cases runs two tracks in parallel: platform complaints to remove listings quickly and stop the bleeding, and administrative enforcement to destroy the warehousing and supply source, with the account books and inventory fixed during enforcement becoming evidence for later claims. The following analyzes the handling process and key points by typical scenario.
Scenario Background
Through routine e-commerce monitoring, a brand rights holder found that multiple platform stores were selling goods bearing its registered trademark at prices markedly below the genuine article, with shoddy workmanship, and that some stores' sales kept rising; the shipping origins of several stores pointed to the same region, suggesting a common source.
Handling Process
- Evidence fixation: notarized purchases were made from the top-selling stores respectively, and after receipt, genuine-versus-fake comparison reports were issued (item-by-item comparison of packaging, anti-counterfeit labels, workmanship, and price); store pages, sales figures, and reviews were fixed with timestamps and notarization;
- Platform complaints: complaints were filed link by link in the platform IP protection system as counterfeit registered trademark goods, with the comparison reports attached; the relevant links were removed within days and some stores were demerited;
- Administrative report: based on logistics information and leads disclosed by the stores, a report was filed with the market regulation authority at the shipping origin. On-site inspection found the warehouse holding a large quantity of goods and packaging bearing the trademark; the party could not provide authorization, was found to infringe under Article 57, and was ordered to stop the infringement with the infringing goods confiscated and destroyed and a fine imposed;
- Follow-up: new links appearing in the same region were continually complained against; on the basis of the infringing facts established in the administrative penalty decision and the seized sales records, a civil damages claim was evaluated.
Key Takeaways
- Collect evidence before complaining: complaints alert the sellers, so notarized purchases must be completed before complaining, or the physical evidence may be lost;
- Counterfeit complaints hinge on authentication: takedown complaints with genuine-versus-fake comparison reports pass at markedly higher rates than complaints with screenshots alone;
- Platforms only stop the bleeding, not the root: after links are deleted, the same source reopens under new stores—only administrative enforcement or criminal strikes can cut the supply;
- The two tracks' evidence complement each other: platform sales records support the damages amount, while administratively seized goods and account books support the infringing facts and scale.
Lessons
The key rhythm of e-commerce counterfeiting enforcement is five progressive steps: monitoring detection, notarized fixation, platform takedown, administrative source-cutting, and litigation recovery; for organized counterfeiting meeting criminal filing standards, a timely criminal report should also be made to dig out the upstream manufacturing chain through investigation. In addition, after an administrative penalty decision is issued, keep the originals and the seizure inventory—they are highly effective evidence of the infringing facts and scale in later civil litigation; for stores that reopen under new identities after being penalized, past penalty records also support a bad-faith finding for punitive damages.
To engage the services described above, you may submit a trademark monitoring request on MyTMBee, and a filed trademark agent will follow up.