The infringement reporting system needs to have a mandatory contact/resolution system

We all know how flawed this system is, so there’s no need to go into that.

What should be done is there should be a brand owner - seller messaging system, where a brand owner can contact a seller regarding an ASIN related issue in an official channel. Whether that’s a used sold as new issue, request for invoices/other documentation (which some companies do through buyer-seller messaging), or an actual infringement/counterfeit issue, a brand owner should have to contact a seller, and the seller has to respond or comply within 72 hours. If the 2 parties cannot reach a satisfactory resolution within 72 hours, then the brand owner can escalate the case for Amazon to take action on it.

The brand owner messaging system would show information about the brand such as Brand name, trademark registration #, and brand owner’s contact name so the seller can verify that it’s the legitimate brand contacting them. Brand owners who escalate a case needlessly will have their privileges revoked (eg. if the brand asks a seller to remove an ASIN, and the seller removes said ASIN and they escalate the case anyway). Sellers who don’t respond will have more severe action taken against them.

The basis here is simple, reasonable sellers will respond to brand owners and resolve the issue directly, which avoids penalizing people needlessly and also avoids clogging up Amazon’s seller performance system. Bad actors typically ignore things like C&Ds and are unlikely to work with the brand to resolve things. Of course, there are also some bad actor brand owners. But if the system is changed so reasonable brand owners and reasonable sellers resolve issues between themselves, then Amazon only needs to be involved when there’s some kind of dispute involving a bad actor.


This will not happen as it would require Amazon get significantly more involved than they are now.

It’d also essentially require them to be involved in literally every legal dispute regarding brands on their platform.

Only way I could ever see Amazon going for this is if they charged a significant amount of $ to allow for the privilege of using such a system.


It would make Amazon LESS involved, Amazon can require this system be used prior to an infringement report being filed by the brand. Most issues will be resolved without any Amazon involvement, any ones that aren’t proceed to the takedown/appeal system we have now (with some tweaks maybe).

Any actual legal disputes would still need to go to court, I’m not suggesting that Amazon arbitrate things between brands and sellers, but that they require brands and sellers to attempt to work it out by themselves BEFORE escalating to an infringement claim.

Being a method of communication is NOT LESS involved. Sellers and rights owners don’t need Amazon to communicate their issues. If a C&D was ignored, or IP stolen, Amazon still wants you to solve it off platform.
Amazon is playing both sides, they want people to sell things without permission so they can make money off them, but they also don’t want to be the next crime enabling catalog of backpage/craigslist and get sued.

I assert the current process is simply the bare minimum they need to do legally as a catalog owner, which IMO is pathetic, as a rights owner and seller.

1 Like

But it would expose Amazon to liability.

Amazon’s lawyers have decided the current system meets regulations to comply with the law with no exposure liability wise.