IP & Brand Registry on online marketplaces: the complete guide for sellers

TL;DRAn IP complaint on Amazon US can pull a top-performing listing within hours, freeze a seller's ability to relist, and – if the account accumulates enough complaints – trigger a full deactivation. Brand Registry, Amazon's primary enforcement channel, gives rights owners automated tools to file complaints at scale, which means sellers can be caught in enforcement actions that have nothing to do with actual wrongdoing. The realistic options after a complaint lands depend on the type of complaint, the evidence available, and how quickly the seller moves.

This guide covers the full terrain: what IP enforcement on Amazon US actually looks like in practice, how Brand Registry complaints are filed and escalated, what the procedural paths are for sellers facing a takedown, and where the decision points matter most. If you are trying to understand the system before a complaint arrives, or working through one right now, this is the place to start.

What IP and Brand Registry enforcement actually means for Amazon sellers

Brand Registry is Amazon's platform for rights owners – trademark holders, copyright owners, and patent holders – to report suspected IP violations across the marketplace. It is not a court. It does not require proof beyond what the complainant submits. And it operates largely on a notice-and-takedown model that puts the burden on the seller to respond.

In matters we handle, the most common complaint types are trademark infringement (typically involving brand names or logos on listings), counterfeit or inauthentic goods (where the rights owner alleges the product is not genuine), and copyright complaints (usually covering product images, A+ content, or packaging photography). Each type follows a different procedural path and requires a different response strategy.

What catches many sellers off guard is the speed. A complaint filed through Brand Registry's automated reporting tools can trigger a listing takedown before the seller even receives an email from Amazon. There is no hearing, no notice period, and no automatic right to present the other side before enforcement happens. A listing that was generating significant revenue at 9 a.m. can be removed by 10 a.m. with no warning beyond the notification that lands in Seller Central after the fact.

The commercial stakes are direct. Lost sales during a takedown affect not just immediate revenue but ranking history, conversion rate data, and – for FBA sellers – inventory that is sitting in Amazon's fulfillment network generating storage fees without generating sales. A complaint that stays unresolved for several weeks compounds this damage. That is why the speed and quality of the initial response matter so much.

What types of IP complaints appear in Brand Registry?

Amazon routes IP complaints into several distinct categories, each with its own procedural implications for the seller targeted. Understanding which type of complaint has been filed is the first step in formulating any response.

Trademark complaints are among the most common. A rights owner or their agent files through Brand Registry alleging that the seller's listing infringes a registered trademark – typically by using the brand name in the title, bullet points, or backend keywords in a way the rights owner has not authorized. Trademark complaints can also target product images where a logo is visible.

A counterfeit or inauthentic complaint is different in character. Here, the rights owner alleges the goods themselves are not genuine – that the seller is selling fake or unauthorized products under the brand's name. These complaints can be more damaging because they implicate the seller's overall account health, not just a single listing. Amazon's internal policies treat inauthentic complaints seriously, and repeated complaints of this type are a common precursor to account-level deactivation reviews.

Copyright complaints typically involve product images, A+ content, brand story copy, or other creative materials. A brand that has registered its product photography or marketing copy can file a complaint claiming the seller copied those materials without authorization. These complaints are governed by Amazon's own notice-and-takedown system, which operates analogously to DMCA counter-notice procedures. The seller can submit a counter-notice denying infringement – but doing so has legal implications beyond the platform.

Amazon also runs the Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program – sometimes called the Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation procedure – which handles claims that a product listed for sale infringes a utility patent. APEX is a distinct and more formal process than standard Brand Registry complaint filing. It involves a neutral evaluator reviewing technical claim charts, and a seller who does not respond loses the evaluation by default. We regularly see sellers miss the APEX response window because they did not recognize what they had received.

A fifth category that sits adjacent to Brand Registry is the used sold as new complaint, where a buyer or rights owner alleges the product was not in the described condition. While this is technically a product-condition complaint rather than an IP complaint, it can be filed through the same Brand Registry channels and carries similar listing-level and account-level consequences.

How does Brand Registry give rights owners enforcement power – and what are the limits?

Brand Registry enrollment gives a rights owner – anyone with a registered trademark in the relevant country – a set of tools that go beyond standard marketplace reporting. Automated protections scan listings for brand name usage and flag potential infringement. Project Zero extends this further, allowing enrolled brands to remove listings they believe infringe their rights without filing a formal complaint each time, subject to Amazon's oversight.

The practical implication for sellers is that enforcement can happen faster than any human review could catch. Brand Registry automation does not distinguish between a counterfeit seller and an authorized reseller whose listing mentions the brand name to accurately describe the product. In matters we handle, authorized distributors and legitimate gray-market sellers are caught in Brand Registry enforcement actions regularly – not because they did something wrong, but because the automated system cannot contextualize the commercial relationship.

There is a persistent myth that a complaint from a brand always means the seller did something wrong. It does not. A complaint from a rights owner is an allegation. It may or may not be accurate. An authorized reseller holding genuine product and a valid purchase invoice has a full defense to a counterfeit complaint, but that defense has to be built and presented – it does not surface automatically.

The limits of Brand Registry enforcement matter too. Brands cannot use the system to suppress price competition or exclude authorized resellers in a way that violates US antitrust principles. Amazon's own policies recognize that not every complaint is legitimate. A rights owner who repeatedly files false or abusive complaints can, in principle, face consequences under Amazon's Brand Registry terms – though in practice, proving abuse of the system is a higher bar than most sellers expect.

What is the procedural path after an IP complaint lands?

The sequence that follows an IP complaint matters enormously, and each step affects what remains possible in later steps. Getting the first response right is not just about resolving the immediate complaint – it is about preserving options.

The first task is identifying exactly what was filed. The notification in Seller Central should describe the complaint type, the complainant, and the ASIN or ASINs affected. That information is the starting point for assessing the strength of the complaint and the viable responses.

For most complaint types, the seller has a choice between two primary routes: seeking a retraction from the complainant, or submitting a counter-notice or appeal directly through Amazon. These are not mutually exclusive, but they carry different risks and timelines.

Seeking a retraction means contacting the rights owner – or their agent – and providing evidence that the complaint is not warranted. For an inauthentic complaint, this typically means supplying purchase invoices from an authorized supply chain. For a trademark complaint, it might mean demonstrating that the use of the brand name was descriptive and accurate, or that the seller holds an authorization letter. A retraction, when obtained, clears the complaint from the account's history more cleanly than an Amazon-side decision.

Counter-notice or platform appeal routes are available for copyright complaints (via Amazon's DMCA-analogous process) and through the standard appeals mechanism for other complaint types. An appeal requires the seller to explain, with evidence, why the complaint should not stand. The quality of the evidence submitted – invoices, authorization letters, test purchase results, trademark ownership records – is what drives the outcome.

For APEX patent evaluations, the timeline is compressed and the stakes are different. A seller who does not submit a substantive technical response by the deadline loses the evaluation by default and the listing is removed. Sellers who do respond and prevail can have the listing reinstated and the rights owner is barred from refiling the same claim. This is one of the few Amazon IP processes that has a structured, binding procedural outcome for both sides.

Throughout this process, account health is the overriding concern. Each unresolved complaint has a weight in Amazon's Account Health Rating system. Multiple complaints – even in different categories – can cross internal thresholds that trigger a policy review or outright deactivation, even if no single complaint would have done so alone. The interaction between IP complaints and account-level deactivation risk is something we review carefully before deciding on the order and method of response in any matter.

Where do the key decision points lie for sellers?

Every IP matter on Amazon presents a series of decision points, and the choices made at each one constrain the choices available later. These are the junctures that matter most.

Retraction first or appeal first? For a complaint that appears weak – where the seller has strong documentation of authorization or supply chain legitimacy – approaching the rights owner for a retraction is often the faster and cleaner path. For a complaint where the rights owner is unreachable or unresponsive, or where there is reason to believe they will refuse, appealing directly through Amazon preserves the timeline. In matters we handle, we assess the complainant's identity, prior complaint behavior, and likely responsiveness before recommending a sequence.

How much evidence is enough? Amazon's reviewers do not apply a legal standard of proof. They apply an internal policy standard, and that standard is not publicly documented with precision. What we observe consistently is that invoices alone are often insufficient for inauthentic complaints – the supply chain needs to be traceable back to the brand or an authorized distributor, and the invoice quantities need to be plausible relative to the sales volume in question. A single invoice from a cash-and-carry wholesale outlet is unlikely to resolve a counterfeit complaint against an account doing significant FBA volume in that ASIN.

What if Amazon rejects the appeal? A rejected first appeal does not end the matter. The reasons for rejection – if Amazon provides them – inform the next step. If the rejection is substantive (Amazon found the evidence insufficient), the focus is on obtaining better evidence. If the rejection appears to be procedural or form-based, a revised submission targeting the procedural gap is the route. And if Amazon's internal processes are exhausted, off-platform options exist – from a direct dispute with the rights owner to, in appropriate cases, a declaratory judgment action in federal court to establish non-infringement.

For sellers facing Schedule A complaints – where they have been named as defendants in a US federal lawsuit alleging trademark or copyright infringement – the decision points are different in kind. A temporary restraining order (TRO) can freeze not just the Amazon listing but the underlying payment account and funds held at Amazon and third-party payment processors. The timeline to respond is extremely short. In those matters, the first decision point is whether to move immediately to challenge the TRO or to open settlement discussions – a choice that depends on the specific facts of the case, the amount at stake, and the identity of the plaintiff.

For guidance on the representation model and what working through an IP matter with Tutamen looks like in practice, see our overview at how Tutamen represents marketplace sellers in IP and Brand Registry matters.

How do IP complaints intersect with account health and deactivation risk?

This is the connection that many sellers underestimate until it is too late. IP complaints do not exist in isolation on an Amazon seller account – they feed into a broader account health picture that Amazon's systems monitor continuously.

Account Health Rating is Amazon's internal composite score, drawn from policy compliance, customer feedback, and dispute history. IP complaints, particularly inauthentic and counterfeit complaints, carry significant negative weight in that scoring. An account that was healthy six months ago can cross into review territory after two or three unresolved complaints in the same complaint category.

The deactivation that follows is typically issued under the Business Solutions Agreement (BSA) – the contract that governs the seller-Amazon relationship – citing policy violations rather than the underlying IP complaint directly. But the IP complaints are what triggered the threshold. Sellers who respond to a deactivation notice without addressing the underlying IP complaint history find their reinstatement appeal incomplete, because Amazon's reviewer can see the complaint record even if the deactivation notice does not specifically cite it.

There is also the question of funds held. When an account is deactivated, Amazon typically holds the disbursement balance for a review period. If the deactivation was triggered partly by IP complaints, the funds hold analysis has to account for the IP history as well as the reinstatement timeline. FBA sellers also have inventory sitting in Amazon's network during this period – removal orders can be processed but they require the account to be active enough to manage logistics, which is not always possible immediately after deactivation.

A home-décor FBA seller on Amazon US (spring 2025) came to us after their account was deactivated following three inauthentic complaints from the same brand owner over a four-month period. The seller held genuine product purchased through a regional distributor, but the invoices named a company that was two steps removed from the brand's official authorized distribution network. We mapped the full supply chain, obtained a letter of authenticity from the intermediate distributor, and rebuilt the appeal to show each invoice link in sequence. The account was restored, and we then worked with the seller to engage the brand owner directly on a prospective authorization arrangement.

For FBA sellers in particular – where the interaction between IP complaints, account health, and inventory logistics is most acute – the detailed process and fee structure are set out at IP and Brand Registry for FBA sellers: scope, process, and fees.

What can brand owners and distributors do when their IP is being infringed on Amazon?

The discussion so far has focused on sellers defending against complaints. But brand owners and authorized distributors face a different and equally pressing set of problems: their genuine products are being undercut by counterfeits, their brand listings are hijacked by unauthorized sellers, and their Brand Registry tools are not resolving the problem quickly enough.

Effective IP enforcement on Amazon as a brand owner is not simply a matter of filing complaints. It requires a coherent strategy that matches the tool to the infringement type.

For counterfeit sellers, the route typically starts with Brand Registry reports backed by test purchase evidence – buying the suspected infringing product as a regular consumer and documenting that it is not genuine. Test purchase evidence is more persuasive than a complaint without it, and it creates a record that supports escalation if Amazon does not act on the initial report.

For unauthorized resellers who are selling genuine product but outside an authorized distribution network, the legal picture is more complex. The first-sale doctrine in US trademark law means that a seller who has legitimately purchased genuine product can, in general, resell it without infringing the trademark. Brand owners who want to restrict resale need to do so through contractual means – authorized dealer agreements and MAP policies – rather than trademark enforcement alone. Attempting to use Brand Registry complaints to remove authorized resellers or enforce minimum resale pricing can expose the brand to counterclaims.

For listing hijacking – where unauthorized sellers add themselves to a brand's existing listing and the buy box cycles between the brand and the interloper – the response combines Brand Registry complaints with, where available, Transparency program enrollment. Amazon Transparency involves a per-unit serialization system that allows genuine products to be verified at fulfillment. It is not a complete solution, but it raises the barrier for hijackers significantly.

A personal care brand owner on Amazon US (fall 2024) approached us after a sustained listing-hijacking campaign that had been running for several months. Multiple unauthorized sellers were adding themselves to the brand's top ASINs, winning the buy box with lower-priced goods that customer returns indicated were not genuine. We coordinated test purchase documentation, filed a structured sequence of Brand Registry reports, and advised on Transparency enrollment for the most-affected ASINs. The unauthorized sellers were progressively removed, and the brand's buy box share was restored to its prior level.

Brand owners and authorized distributors operating across a complex distribution structure – particularly those with international operations or wholesale channels – will find a detailed treatment of the enforcement and protection options at IP and Brand Registry for brand owners and distributors.

US vs. EU: how IP enforcement differs for sellers operating cross-border

Amazon US operates under US trademark law (the Lanham Act), US copyright law, and US patent law, with Amazon's own Brand Registry policies layered on top. Sellers who also operate on Amazon's European storefronts – Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.it, Amazon.es – face a structurally similar enforcement system but with meaningful differences in the underlying law and in the additional regulatory overlay that EU sellers now operate under.

The first-sale doctrine operates differently in the EU than in the US. Under EU trademark exhaustion principles, a trademark owner's right to control resale of a genuinely branded product placed on the EU market by or with the trademark owner's consent is exhausted – but the geographic scope of that exhaustion matters, and a product placed on the US market by the trademark owner is not necessarily exhausted for EU purposes. This distinction matters directly for parallel importers and gray-market sellers who move product between US and EU distribution channels.

The Digital Services Act (DSA) adds a further layer for Amazon EU operations. As a designated Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), Amazon is required to provide sellers with a statement of reasons when their content is removed following an IP complaint, and to maintain an internal complaint-handling system that sellers can use to challenge removals. These DSA procedural rights are available to sellers operating on EU storefronts, and we work to use those levers as part of the EU dispute toolkit.

For matters that require advice under EU or national law, we work with appropriate local counsel. The strategic coordination and the Amazon-side platform advocacy are handled by Tutamen, ensuring the IP complaint response and the platform appeal work in the same direction.

What does "resolving" an IP complaint actually look like?

Resolution means different things depending on the complaint type, the evidence available, and the rights owner's position. There is no single outcome that "resolving" an IP complaint always produces.

At the most favorable end: the rights owner retracts the complaint, the listing is reinstated, and the complaint is cleared from the account's health record. This is the cleanest outcome and is achievable in a significant share of cases where the seller has strong documentation and the complaint was filed against a seller who is, in fact, authorized or non-infringing.

A more common outcome is Amazon-side reinstatement of the listing without a formal retraction from the rights owner. The listing is back up, but the complaint record remains on the account. This is a satisfactory operational outcome but leaves the seller potentially vulnerable to a further complaint from the same rights owner, so the underlying relationship question is not fully resolved.

In contested cases – where the rights owner will not retract and Amazon upholds the complaint – the seller faces a decision about escalation. Off-platform escalation options include a direct dispute with the rights owner, a declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking a ruling of non-infringement, or, where the complaint was filed in bad faith, a Lanham Act claim against the rights owner for abuse of process. These are not steps to take lightly or without legal advice, because they bring US federal litigation risk for both parties.

If a complaint or a series of complaints has already triggered an account deactivation, the reinstatement question merges with the IP question. The Plan of Action submitted to Amazon needs to address both the root cause of the deactivation and the IP complaint history. A reinstatement appeal that fixes the account health narrative without squarely addressing the IP complaints is incomplete – and in our experience, that is one of the most common reasons for a rejected first appeal.

What are the most common mistakes sellers make when handling IP complaints without legal support?

A complaint can pull a top listing in hours, and the pressure to respond immediately is real. That pressure produces predictable mistakes.

The most common is submitting an appeal before assembling adequate evidence. Amazon's review process does not reward speed; it rewards accuracy and completeness. An appeal submitted with an incomplete invoice chain, a vague authorization letter, or no supply-chain documentation at all is almost always rejected. That rejection then narrows the options for a follow-up filing, because Amazon's systems flag the account's complaint and appeal history, and a pattern of rejected appeals is itself a negative signal.

A second common mistake is contacting the rights owner without having a clear position. Reaching out to request a retraction without understanding the complaint's basis or having documentation ready often results in a demand for information the seller is not prepared to supply – or a flat refusal that closes the retraction route prematurely.

Third: treating every complaint type as if it were the same. A counter-notice for a copyright complaint has legal implications under US copyright law that are different from submitting a supply-chain appeal for an inauthentic complaint. Filing the wrong type of response can waive procedural options or create estoppel risks that affect off-platform disputes.

Fourth: ignoring the account-health dimension while focusing only on the listing. Sellers who get a single listing reinstated while the complaint record continues to accumulate on the account are solving the immediate problem while the larger one grows. How quickly can another complaint push the account across the deactivation threshold? That question needs to be part of the response strategy from the start.

If an appeal has already been submitted and rejected, a second analysis can identify the specific gap that caused the rejection and what, if anything, remains procedurally open. To discuss a rejected appeal or a new complaint, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

The seller's decision matrix: which route fits which situation

Not every IP complaint requires the same response, and not every response requires legal representation. This section maps the main complaint scenarios to the realistic response routes and their trade-offs.

If the notice is a counterfeit or inauthentic complaint and the seller holds genuine product with a traceable, brand-authorized supply chain – the primary route is a retraction approach backed by a supply-chain submission. Timeline: typically several days to a few weeks depending on the rights owner's responsiveness. If the supply chain documentation is incomplete or indirect, the route shifts to a more intensive supply-chain reconstruction before any contact with the rights owner.

If the notice is a trademark complaint involving unauthorized use of a brand name and the seller has an authorization letter from the brand – the route is a platform appeal with the authorization letter as the primary exhibit, potentially supplemented by a retraction request. If there is no authorization letter but the use was descriptive and accurate, a legal analysis of whether a trademark infringement actually occurred is the prerequisite step before filing any response.

If the notice is a copyright complaint and the images or copy were created by or licensed to the seller – the counter-notice route is available, but the decision to file it should be made with an understanding of the legal implications under US copyright law, including the potential for the rights owner to file a lawsuit in response.

If the notice is an APEX patent evaluation – the response timeline is short and strict. A seller who cannot prepare a technical response to the patent claims before the deadline should seek legal support immediately. Default means the listing is removed. A successful response means the listing stays up and the claim cannot be refiled.

If the complaint has already triggered a deactivation – the reinstatement appeal is the immediate priority, and it needs to address the IP complaint history alongside the deactivation root cause. The IP-specific evidence and the reinstatement Plan of Action are parts of a single submission.

If the seller has been named as a defendant in a US federal Schedule A action – the timeline is measured in days, not weeks. A temporary restraining order (TRO) can be issued ex parte, and the window to oppose it is short. The strategic choices at that stage – oppose the TRO, seek to modify the asset freeze, open settlement discussions – are best made with federal litigation counsel immediately.

A first read of the complaint and the account's health record – understanding what type of complaint it is, what evidence is available, and what the account's complaint history looks like – is the work that determines which of these routes is realistic in a given case.

Self-assessment: what information do you need before acting?

Before choosing a response route, a seller handling an IP complaint should be able to answer the following questions. These are the information points that any effective response will need to address.

• What is the complaint type? Trademark, copyright, counterfeit/inauthentic, patent (APEX), or condition-related?
• Who is the complainant – the brand owner directly, a Brand Registry agent, or an unknown third party?
• Which ASINs are affected, and what is the sales volume and ranking history of those listings?
• What does the current Account Health Rating show, and are there prior complaints from the same or different rights owners in the account history?
• What supply-chain documentation exists – invoices, purchase orders, authorization letters, import records?
• Is there a direct commercial relationship with the brand or its authorized distributors, and can that relationship be documented?
• For copyright complaints: who created or licensed the contested material – images, copy, A+ content – and is that documented?
• For APEX: has the response deadline been identified, and is there access to a patent attorney for the technical claim analysis?
• Has a prior appeal been submitted? What was the outcome, and what reason, if any, did Amazon give for rejection?

Sellers who can answer all of these questions are in a position to build a response. Sellers who are missing several answers are better served by resolving the information gaps before submitting anything to Amazon.

What sellers often find is that the process of assembling these answers also clarifies whether the complaint has merit. A seller who believed their supply chain was clean sometimes discovers, while tracing invoices, that a step in the chain was not authorized by the brand. That is a harder situation than a straightforwardly wrongful complaint – but knowing it early still produces better outcomes than discovering it after a rejected appeal.

What Tutamen does in IP and Brand Registry matters

Tutamen is an independent law firm. Our IP and Brand Registry work is attorney-led throughout – not a paralegal or account-management service with occasional attorney review. Every matter starts with a structured review of the complaint, the account history, and the available documentation before any response is filed.

For sellers defending against complaints, we assess the complaint, gather prior-use and authorization evidence, and push for retraction or counter-notice depending on which route the evidence supports. Where an account has already been deactivated, we reconstruct the account and IP complaint timeline, prepare the reinstatement Plan of Action, and address the IP history as part of the same submission.

For brand owners and authorized distributors, we assess the infringement, advise on test purchase strategy, coordinate Brand Registry report submissions, and advise on Transparency enrollment and prospective distribution contract design. Where off-platform enforcement is warranted, we advise on that decision with an understanding of both the legal and the practical marketplace implications.

Fees are fixed per matter, quoted up front after a short review. We do not bill open-ended hourly rates on standard IP complaint and Brand Registry matters. For sellers under time pressure – an APEX deadline, a TRO response window, a deactivation that is holding funds – we work to respond quickly.

For a review of your complaint or a question about the process, email info@tutamenlaw.com. We will ask for the complaint notification and the relevant account history, and we will tell you what we see and what the realistic options are.

Related areas

• Amazon account reinstatement – restoring deactivated accounts on Amazon US and other surfaces
• Frozen funds recovery – mapping held balances and pressing disbursement and reimbursement claims
• Schedule A federal defense – opposing TROs, challenging jurisdiction, and opening settlement in federal IP actions
• EU marketplace regulation – DSA, P2B, and DMA levers for sellers and brands on European Amazon storefronts

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving an IP and Brand Registry matter usually take on Amazon US?

The timeline varies significantly by complaint type and the path taken. A retraction from the rights owner – when the seller has strong documentation and the complainant is responsive – can resolve a complaint within a few days to two weeks. A platform appeal through Amazon's internal process typically takes longer, often several weeks, and the timeline can extend further if Amazon requests additional information. APEX patent evaluations have a fixed response window set by Amazon, and the outcome is delivered on Amazon's schedule after the evaluation. Matters that involve account-level deactivation, a rejected first appeal, or off-platform escalation take longer still. The most reliable thing that can be said is that a well-prepared first submission almost always resolves faster than a series of incomplete attempts.

What are the main risks if I handle an IP and Brand Registry matter on my own?

The primary risk is submitting a premature or incomplete response that narrows the options available for subsequent attempts. Amazon's review systems record appeal history, and a pattern of rejected appeals affects how later submissions are evaluated. Beyond the platform, counter-notices for copyright complaints carry legal implications under US copyright law – filing one incorrectly or without understanding the consequences can expose the seller to liability off the platform. For APEX responses, a missed deadline or a technically inadequate submission results in a default ruling that removes the listing permanently and cannot be reopened. And for sellers whose accounts are near a policy threshold, an IP complaint response that does not account for the account-health dimension can trigger a deactivation that might otherwise have been avoided.

Do I need a lawyer for an IP and Brand Registry matter?

Not every IP complaint requires legal representation. A seller with a clean supply chain, clear authorization documentation, and a straightforward inauthentic complaint can often resolve the matter through Amazon's own appeal process. Where legal support adds clear value is in cases where the complaint type is complex (patent evaluations, copyright counter-notices, multi-complaint deactivation), the evidence is incomplete or disputed, a prior appeal has been rejected, or the matter is escalating off-platform. Sellers who have been named as defendants in US federal Schedule A actions should seek attorney representation immediately – those matters involve federal court timelines, TRO opposition windows, and strategic choices that have long-term consequences for the business.

About Tutamen

Tutamen is an independent law firm for online marketplace sellers. We represent Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay sellers in account deactivations, frozen-funds recovery, intellectual-property disputes, arbitration and Notices of Dispute, and US federal Schedule A defense, plus EU marketplace regulation. Our work is attorney-led and confidential, with fees quoted up front. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Every matter is handled with full attorney oversight and strict confidentiality – no outsourced review, no open-ended billing. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

By Adrian Cole, Partner – IP & Brand Registry at Tutamen

Page authored by Adrian Cole, Partner, IP & Brand Registry, Tutamen.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marketplace policies and the law change, and every account and case is different. For advice on your situation, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.