Truviss

Tag: IP Infringement

  • Supreme Court Limits What Counterfeiters Actually Pay

    Supreme Court Limits What Counterfeiters Actually Pay

    Home/Blog/Supreme Court Limits What Counterfeiters Actually Pay
    Marketplace Protection

    Supreme Court Limits What Counterfeiters Actually Pay

    Truviss TeamAug 16, 20265 min read
    IP Infringement Counterfeit Listings Marketplace Monitoring Takedowns
    Know who you’re actually suing before you file

    Truviss tracks the real operating entities and repeat infringers behind counterfeit listings and shell storefronts, so a future claim names the right defendant and holds up on evidence.

    Book a demo
    Abstract shield and ledger illustration representing trademark disgorgement scope
    TL;DR
    • On 26 February 2025, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that trademark disgorgement awards can only reach the profits of the named defendant, not its separately incorporated affiliates.
    • The case, Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., wiped out most of a $43 million award because the profits behind that figure belonged to Dewberry Group’s affiliates, not Dewberry Group itself.
    • It’s a corporate-naming dispute between two real estate firms, not a counterfeit case, but the profit-fragmentation gap it addresses applies directly to brands chasing infringers who operate through shell storefronts and disposable seller accounts.
    • The lesson: a winning judgment isn’t a real payout, which is why identifying the actual operating entity before filing matters more than the lawsuit itself.

    Most brand owners assume that winning a trademark infringement suit means the infringer eventually writes a cheque. Sue, win, collect. On 26 February 2025, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the second half of that sequence is a lot narrower than most plaintiffs think.

    In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., 604 U.S. ___ (2025), Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, held that under the Lanham Act’s disgorgement provision (§1117(a)), a court can only award the profits of the party actually named as the defendant. Not its parent company. Not its sister companies. Not any other legally separate affiliate that happens to be part of the same operation, however tightly linked they are in practice. “Defendant” means what it has always meant in the ordinary legal sense: the party against whom relief is sought in that specific case.

    That distinction sounds technical. It cost Dewberry Engineers most of a $43 million judgment.

    What actually happened in Dewberry

    Dewberry Engineers, a Virginia-based real estate firm, and Dewberry Group, a Georgia-based real estate firm, have disputed the use of the “Dewberry” name since 2006. The two companies settled that first dispute in 2007. Tensions resurfaced after Dewberry Group rebranded in 2017 and introduced sub-brands including Dewberry Living and Studio Dewberry, prompting Dewberry Engineers to sue again in 2020.

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Dewberry Engineers and affirmed a $43 million disgorgement award against Dewberry Group. The problem: Dewberry Group itself reported little to no profit on its own books. The bulk of the $43 million came from profits earned by Dewberry Group’s affiliated companies, entities that were never named as defendants in the suit. The lower courts had effectively treated the whole corporate family as one economic unit for the purposes of calculating damages.

    The Supreme Court said that is not how §1117(a) works. A plaintiff can only collect the profits of the entity it actually sued. If a plaintiff wants to reach an affiliate’s profits, it needs to name that affiliate as a defendant, or separately establish grounds like piercing the corporate veil. Simply pointing at a related company’s bank account after winning is not enough. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case, explicitly declining to weigh in on several related questions: whether the “just sum” language elsewhere in §1117(a) could support a different profits calculation, whether courts can look behind a defendant’s own accounting or tax records to find its true financial gain, and whether veil-piercing remains available on these facts. All three stay open for the lower courts to work through.

    Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence sketching two ways the district court could still arrive at a similar number on remand using better evidence: examining whether Dewberry Group paid its affiliates below-market rates for shared resources (effectively suppressing its own reported profit), or tracing cash infusions an individual associated with the company made into Dewberry Group, potentially sourced from affiliate profits. In other words, the ruling closes off a shortcut, not the underlying result. It just requires the plaintiff to build the case for it properly.

    To be precise about what this case is and is not: it is a trademark dispute over the use of a company name between two real estate businesses. It is not a counterfeit goods case, and Dewberry Group was not accused of selling fake products. But the structural gap the ruling addresses, profits sitting just out of reach in a separately incorporated entity, is a much more common problem in the world Truviss’s customers operate in.

    Why this matters even if you never sue a real estate company

    Counterfeit and marketplace-abuse operations are built around exactly the kind of corporate fragmentation Dewberry turned on, usually on purpose. A single infringing operation frequently runs through a web of shell storefronts, shifting seller accounts, and thinly capitalised fronts, each one showing minimal profit on paper even while the operation as a whole moves real money. That structure was not designed with this Supreme Court ruling in mind, but it benefits from the same principle: a court will only make you pay what the entity you actually sued can be shown to have earned.

    Put plainly, if the Supreme Court will not let a plaintiff reach into an affiliate’s accounts without naming that affiliate directly, or without doing the harder work of proving veil-piercing or suppressed pricing the way Sotomayor’s concurrence describes, a brand suing a single storefront, reseller account, or shell company sits in the identical position. Recovery is capped at what that one named party can be proven to have made, regardless of how much money the broader operation behind it actually generated. Tools designed to track repeat infringers and connect related listings, the kind of monitoring built into a marketplace scanner, exist precisely to surface which entities are actually operating before a case gets filed, not after a judgment turns out to be uncollectable.

    See how Truviss identifies the real operating entities and repeat infringers behind shell storefronts, before a case ever needs to name them.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Truviss covers this same enforcement gap on the takedown side too. Getting content or a listing removed quickly, the mechanics behind a takedown request, stops the immediate bleeding, but it does not answer the separate question this ruling raises: who is actually behind the operation, and can a future damages claim, if it ever comes to that, name them correctly.

    This is also a different problem from the one another recent ruling addressed. Truviss covered how two 2026 Seventh Circuit decisions made Schedule A litigation, the fast, multi-defendant tool brands use against overseas counterfeit sellers, harder to use by tightening jurisdiction and service-of-process requirements. That is a case about getting a court to hear the claim at all. Dewberry is a case about what a brand can actually collect once it wins. Different legal mechanism, same underlying theme: procedural and structural gaps keep narrowing what enforcement can deliver, which puts more weight on what a brand does before it ever files.

    The real takeaway: litigation was never the plan

    None of this makes trademark enforcement pointless. It is another data point in a pattern brand owners are increasingly running into: a favourable judgment is not automatically a financial outcome. Recovery now depends heavily on naming the right parties from the outset, and naming the right parties depends on knowing who is actually behind an infringement before you file, not discovering it during discovery or, worse, after judgment.

    That is where proactive detection earns its keep. Continuous online brand protection monitoring across marketplaces, social platforms, and app stores is what surfaces the actual operating entity and seller network behind an infringement while there is still time to name it correctly and structure a case around it. A documented evidence trail, timestamps, verified listings, and account history, also determines whether a brand can even prove who the right defendant is once it does decide to litigate, exactly the kind of evidentiary work Sotomayor’s concurrence shows a court is willing to credit. Truviss’s case management and evidence storage exists for exactly that reason: building the record that makes a future legal claim collectable, not just winnable.

    Litigation should be the backstop, not the strategy. The Dewberry ruling is a reminder that even when the backstop works exactly as intended, and this was a clean, unanimous Supreme Court win for the underlying legal principle, it still cannot recover money that was never in the named defendant’s hands to begin with. Detection and prevention are what determine whether a brand is chasing the right target in the first place.

  • Havells vs Havai: A Trademark Didn’t Save the Copycat

    Havells vs Havai: A Trademark Didn’t Save the Copycat

    Home/Blog/Havells vs Havai: A Trademark Didn’t Save the Copycat
    Marketplace Protection

    Havells vs Havai: A Trademark Didn’t Save the Copycat

    Truviss TeamAug 16, 20265 min read
    IP Infringement Brand Impersonation Takedowns
    Spot copycat branding before it reaches a courtroom

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner watches for the same real-world signals this ruling turned on: stylisation, colour and get-up designed to mimic a brand.

    Book a demo
    Havells vs Havai trademark passing off ruling cover
    TL;DR
    • Delhi High Court granted Havells an interim injunction against Havai Home Products in July 2026, even though Havai held its own registered trademark.
    • The court looked past the registered word mark to how it was actually used: a stylised final letter made “HAVAI” visually and phonetically close to “HAVELLS.”
    • Passing off in India rests on goodwill, misrepresentation and damage, not on who owns which registration.
    • The takeaway for brands: don’t shelve a lookalike complaint just because the copycat has its own trademark. Document real-world presentation, not just registrations.

    In July 2026, the Delhi High Court granted Havells India an interim injunction against Havai Home Products, a manufacturer of air coolers, pedestal fans and immersion rods trading under the mark “HAVAI.” The judgment is short on drama and long on a single, useful fact for anyone running brand protection in India: Havai had its own registered trademark, and the court granted the injunction anyway.

    That is the headline. A registered trademark, in Justice Jyoti Singh’s courtroom, was not a defence against a passing-off claim once the judge looked at how the mark was actually used.

    What Havai actually did

    The dispute was CS(COMM) 778/2024, filed by Havells against Havai Home Products and a co-defendant trading as Advance Coolers. On paper, Havai’s registered word mark was “HAVAI,” a name that looks and reads differently enough from “HAVELLS” to have cleared trademark registration in the first place.

    What the court looked at was not the paper mark. It was the mark as it appeared on actual products and packaging, where the final “I” in “HAVAI” was stylised to visually read as an “L,” closing the gap toward “HAVELLS” both phonetically and at a glance. This kind of gap between a registered word and its stylised real-world presentation is the same pattern behind brand impersonation more broadly: the legal registration is one thing, what a shopper actually sees and reads is another, and the second one is what confuses people. The court also weighed the device marks, colour scheme and overall get-up used alongside the name, all of which it found were designed to echo Havells’ own presentation. On top of that, the defendants had reportedly used “HAVELLS SPARES” directly on spare parts, with no authorisation to use the Havells name at all.

    Justice Singh’s own language on the stylisation was blunt: it was “a mala fide attempt to sail close to HAVELLS marks.” The defendants, the court noted, offered no real explanation for why their actual branding departed from their own registered mark, except to create an impression of association with Havells.

    Passing off in India rests on three ingredients: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. The court found all three satisfied, calling this “a classic and textbook case of passing off, wherein misrepresentation is the founding pillar.”

    Havells cleared the goodwill test comfortably. The brand has been in use since 1942, holds trademark registrations dating to 1955, and was declared a “well-known mark” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by the same Delhi High Court in a judgment dated 8 December 2024. That status matters here: a well-known mark gets protection against confusingly similar branding even outside its exact product category, and it puts a heavier burden on anyone whose branding drifts close to it to explain why.

    The practical lesson sits in the gap between two different questions. Trademark registration answers “do I legally own this specific mark.” Passing off answers “does the market actually confuse this with an established brand.” Those are not the same question, and an Indian court will keep asking the second one regardless of how the first one was answered. This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The underlying suit continues, and Havai’s registration itself has not been cancelled. But for the period the injunction covers, Havai cannot sell, market, advertise or offer the impugned goods under “HAVAI” or the device marks the court found imitative.

    See how Truviss applies the same real-world-presentation lens to marketplace listings, not just registrations.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Why this matters beyond electricals

    Nothing about this ruling is specific to air coolers. Any brand whose real exposure comes from a copycat that looks compliant on paper, its own registered name, its own GST number, an open storefront, faces exactly the pattern this case describes. This is a form of online brand abuse that a certificate search alone will never catch, because the abuse lives in presentation, not registration. A competitor holding a registration has always felt like a dead end for the brand being copied: “they’re registered, what can we actually do.” This ruling is a direct answer that the registration alone settles nothing if the real-world presentation tells a different story.

    That distinction, real-world presentation over paperwork, is the same signal Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner is built to surface. A listing, an ad, or a storefront can carry a technically distinct registered name and still be built to create exactly the kind of confusion this court penalised, through stylisation, colour, or get-up that a shopper actually encounters rather than a name a trademark examiner compared in isolation. Catching that pattern early, before it reaches the volume a court case implies, is a detection problem before it is a legal one.

    What a brand should do differently after this ruling

    Do not let a competitor’s trademark certificate be the reason a lookalike goes unchallenged. If a brand manager or legal lead has previously shelved a passing-off complaint because the other side “has their own registration,” this case is direct precedent that the registration is not the end of the analysis.

    What actually builds a passing-off case is evidence of real-world presentation: screenshots of the product as sold, the stylisation used on packaging, the colour scheme, the overall commercial impression a shopper would form. That is what carried this case, not a side-by-side comparison of two certificates. Any brand facing a similar lookalike should start documenting exactly that, consistently and early, rather than waiting until the confusion has scaled into an obvious problem.

  • The Counterfeit Comes Back Through Your Own Return Desk

    The Counterfeit Comes Back Through Your Own Return Desk

    Home/Blog/The Counterfeit Comes Back Through Your Own Return Desk
    Marketplace Protection

    The Counterfeit Comes Back Through Your Own Return Desk

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20266 min read
    Counterfeit Listings IP Infringement
    Verify at the point of sale and beyond

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner applies SKU-level matching to catch counterfeit listings before they ever reach a customer.

    Book a demo
    Counterfeit return fraud swap cover
    TL;DR
    • Return-swap fraud runs the opposite direction of every other counterfeit risk: the customer buys genuine, returns a fake, and keeps the real item.
    • NRF and Happy Returns’ 2025 Retail Returns Landscape report found $76.5B (9%) of $849.9B in 2025 US retail returns was fraudulent, and 64% of retailers tracking fraud reported an increase in counterfeit decoy returns.
    • The risk is two-stage: the direct refund loss, plus the compounding risk of an undetected fake being restocked and resold as genuine.
    • This fraud happens entirely inside a retailer’s own return process, invisible to marketplace, domain, or social-media monitoring.

    Every other counterfeit risk covered so far enters through a sale, a marketplace listing, a lookalike domain, a social post promising a discount. This one enters through the opposite direction entirely. A customer buys the genuine product, swaps in a counterfeit or damaged substitute, and returns the fake for a full refund, keeping the real item for themselves. According to NRF and Happy Returns’ 2025 Retail Returns Landscape report, published in October 2025, of $849.9 billion in total US retail returns for 2025, roughly $76 billion, about 9%, was fraudulent. Among retailers tracking fraud incidents specifically, 64% reported an increase in decoy returns involving counterfeit items swapped in for the genuine product.

    How the swap actually works

    The mechanism is straightforward, and it targets specific categories deliberately. Designer handbags, jewelry, watches and other high per-unit-value goods that are easy to replicate convincingly enough to pass a quick visual check at a return desk are the most common targets. Four trends make this easier to pull off now than it used to be: the fakes themselves are cheaper and more convincing than they were even a few years ago, e-commerce growth means many returns never face an in-person checker at all, more generous return policies remove friction that used to slow fraud down, and new technology, including AI, is increasingly used to fabricate supporting documents like receipts.

    Why this is a two-stage risk, not one

    The immediate loss is straightforward: a refund issued for a product the retailer no longer actually has, replaced by something worth a fraction of the price. But the compounding risk is worse. If the counterfeit substitute isn’t caught at intake, it can be restocked and sold to a real customer as genuine, at which point a return-fraud incident quietly becomes an actual counterfeit sale under the brand’s own name, the exact failure mode this blog has already covered from a dozen other angles this year, just arriving through a completely different door.

    See how Truviss applies SKU-level matching to verify products against the real catalogue, wherever they appear.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Why this sits outside normal brand-protection monitoring entirely

    Marketplace monitoring, domain monitoring and social-media monitoring all watch for a counterfeit trying to reach a customer through a sale, a listing going live, a lookalike domain registering, a post going up. This fraud pattern happens entirely inside a retailer’s own physical or logistics operation, after a sale has already closed, which means none of those monitoring types are built to see it at all. It’s not a gap in how well any of them work, it’s a category of risk sitting in a completely different part of the operation, one that needs its own verification step rather than an extension of listing or domain monitoring.

    What verification at the point of return would need

    The same underlying principle used elsewhere in brand protection, matching a specific unit against verified product data rather than trusting appearance alone, applies here too, just pointed at inbound returns instead of outbound listings. Serial numbers, authentication markers, or catalogue-level product verification checked at the point of intake is what catches a swap before the counterfeit re-enters inventory, rather than discovering it only when a real customer complains about receiving a fake from a retailer they trusted.

    Getting started

    A brand or retailer handling high-value, easy-to-replicate categories, jewelry, watches, designer goods, should treat return intake as seriously as any other counterfeit checkpoint in the business. A fraud pattern invisible to marketplace or domain monitoring can still put a counterfeit product back into circulation under the brand’s own name, and by the time it surfaces as a customer complaint, the fraud has already happened twice, once at the swap, and again at the resale.

  • Why Counterfeit Chargers Are a Safety Problem

    Why Counterfeit Chargers Are a Safety Problem

    Home/Blog/Why Counterfeit Chargers Are a Safety Problem
    Marketplace Protection

    Why Counterfeit Chargers Are a Safety Problem

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20266 min read
    Counterfeit Listings IP Infringement Unauthorised Resellers
    Catch it before it reaches a wall socket

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner matches listings against your real catalogue at SKU level, catching counterfeit accessory listings continuously.

    Book a demo
    Counterfeit chargers safety risk cover
    TL;DR
    • In May 2025, CBP seized 370,000+ counterfeit Apple-branded chargers at the Port of Houston, worth over $7 million, some boxed to also mimic Anker’s logo.
    • A 2016 UL study found 99% of 400 counterfeit Apple chargers tested failed basic safety tests, only 3 had adequate shock protection.
    • Even genuine, certified electronics get recalled (Anker recalled 1M+ of its own power banks in 2025), but that happens inside a testing and recall system. Counterfeits have none of that.
    • Customs seizures happen at the border; brand-side monitoring is what catches listings already live and selling before a customer plugs something dangerous in.

    In May 2025, US Customs and Border Protection seized more than 370,000 counterfeit chargers bearing the Apple trademark at the Port of Houston, worth over $7 million at genuine retail prices, packed into 7,460 cartons. Inside some of those cartons, officers found charger boxes labeled “Ankar,” closely mimicking Anker’s own logo, a second counterfeit nested inside a shipment already counterfeiting a first brand. That single detail says more about the scale and sophistication of counterfeit electronics operations than the dollar figure on its own. Whoever built this shipment wasn’t opportunistically faking one product, they were running an operation sophisticated enough to counterfeit two different brands’ packaging within the same load.

    The safety stakes are physical, not just financial

    Most counterfeit categories carry financial and reputational risk. Counterfeit chargers carry that too, but they add something most categories don’t: an immediate, physical failure mode. A 2016 UL-commissioned study of 400 counterfeit Apple chargers bought online found that 99% failed basic safety tests, and only three of the 400 had sufficient insulation to protect against electric shock. That’s a decade-old study, not new data, but the underlying physics it exposed, cheap or absent isolation transformers, no safety certification, no quality control, hasn’t changed simply because a decade has passed. A counterfeit charger doesn’t fail the way a counterfeit listing for a handbag or a lipstick fails. It fails by overheating, shorting, or catching fire, in someone’s hand or plugged into their wall.

    A necessary distinction: counterfeit risk versus genuine-product recalls

    It’s worth being precise here, because even genuine, certified electronics from known brands sometimes get recalled too. Anker recalled more than a million of its own authentic PowerCore power banks in June 2025 after 19 reports of fires and explosions. That’s a real safety issue, and it’s a serious one, but it happened inside a testing, reporting and recall infrastructure that caught the problem and acted on it. A counterfeit product has none of that infrastructure at all. No safety testing before it ships, no manufacturer accountable for a recall, no traceable batch or serial number tying a specific unit back to a specific failure. A genuine product’s recall is the floor of acceptable risk in this category, the system working as intended, even if imperfectly. An untested counterfeit starts below that floor with effectively zero visibility into what’s actually inside it.

    See how Truviss matches listings against your real catalogue at SKU level, across every marketplace, not just the ones with dedicated brand-registry tools.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    The scale, in proper context

    The Houston seizure wasn’t an isolated event. In April 2026, Philadelphia CBP seized two shipments from China containing more than 20,000 pieces across 35 different types of counterfeit consumer electronics, including chargers, headphones, cameras and gaming systems. Nationally, CBP seized over 78 million counterfeit items across all categories in fiscal year 2025, worth an estimated $7.3 billion at genuine retail prices. That figure spans every counterfeit category CBP tracks, not electronics specifically, but it establishes the scale of the pipeline that a shipment like the Houston one moves through.

    Why this needs brand-side monitoring, not just customs enforcement

    Customs seizures happen at the border, after a shipment has already been built and is already moving, and they catch what gets caught, not everything that gets through. A brand’s own continuous SKU-level matching, applied to marketplace monitoring, is what catches the listings that make it past the border and are already live and selling, before a customer plugs a dangerous counterfeit into their phone or a wall socket rather than after. The two aren’t redundant, customs enforcement disrupts supply at scale, brand monitoring catches what reaches the point of sale, but relying on customs alone leaves the entire retail side of the problem unmonitored.

    Getting started

    Any brand selling charging accessories, or with a high-value accessory line attached to a core product, phone chargers, laptop adapters, power banks, should treat counterfeit monitoring here with the same urgency as any product-safety issue, not just a line item under IP protection. The downside of a missed counterfeit listing in this category isn’t a bad review or a lost sale. It’s a real fire or burn risk happening under the brand’s own name, to a customer who has no way of knowing the difference until it’s already too late.

  • 67% of Online Cosmetics Are Fake, Investigation Finds

    67% of Online Cosmetics Are Fake, Investigation Finds

    Home/Blog/67% of Online Cosmetics Are Fake, Investigation Finds
    Marketplace Protection

    67% of Online Cosmetics Are Fake, Investigation Finds

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20266 min read
    Counterfeit Listings IP Infringement Marketplace Monitoring
    Catch what a smell test can’t

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner matches listings against your real catalogue at SKU level, across TikTok Shop, Vinted and every marketplace, not just the largest ones.

    Book a demo
    Counterfeit cosmetics investigation cover
    TL;DR
    • Which?, the UK consumer body, bought 34 cosmetics from Amazon, eBay, TikTok Shop and Vinted under household names. 23 of 34, 67%, were judged likely counterfeit.
    • TikTok Shop and Vinted came out worst (5/6 and 6/6), against Amazon (4/11) and eBay (8/11).
    • A counterfeit cosmetic can look, smell and feel correct while containing a completely different, unregulated formulation, unlike most counterfeit categories where a visual flaw is often visible.
    • Counterfeit cosmetics have been found containing lead, mercury and DEHP, a probable human carcinogen, a genuine safety exposure sitting under the brand’s own name.

    Which?, the UK consumer body, bought 34 cosmetic products from third-party sellers on Amazon, eBay, TikTok Shop and Vinted, all advertised as household names, Charlotte Tilbury, MAC, The Ordinary, La Roche-Posay, Maybelline. Twenty-three of the 34, 67%, were judged likely to be counterfeit. TikTok Shop and Vinted came out worst, five of six products from TikTok Shop and all six from Vinted were suspected fakes, against four of eleven on Amazon and eight of eleven on eBay. One example: a La Roche-Posay Effaclar Serum, retailing genuinely at £40, bought on Vinted for £12, that smelt suspiciously like shampoo and carried different text on the box than the genuine sample. This wasn’t a niche listing either, the two suspected-counterfeit eBay listings investigated had collectively sold more than 2,600 units, and the flagged Ordinary listings on TikTok Shop had sold close to 1,000.

    Why cosmetics resist the usual detection cues

    A counterfeit lipstick or serum can look, smell and even feel correct on first impression while containing a completely different, unregulated formulation underneath, or in the Effaclar Serum’s case, smell noticeably wrong and still sell thousands of units before anyone flagged it. That’s a meaningfully different problem from most counterfeit categories. A fake electronics accessory often has a visible build-quality flaw. A fake handbag frequently has an off stitch or wrong hardware weight a trained eye catches quickly. A cosmetic product’s actual danger sits in its chemistry, not its appearance, which means the usual “does this look right” instinct that catches other fakes doesn’t reliably work here at all.

    The stakes go beyond brand reputation

    This isn’t just a lost sale or a damaged review score. Counterfeit cosmetics have been found containing lead and mercury in lipsticks and skin-lightening creams, and DEHP, classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen, in counterfeit perfumes. A customer applying a counterfeit product to their skin is exposed to whatever the counterfeiter actually put in the formulation, with no regulatory oversight and no guarantee it bears any resemblance to what the packaging claims. The brand whose name is on the box carries the reputational fallout regardless of who actually made the product.

    Why social commerce platforms show up worst

    TikTok Shop and Vinted’s worse results in the Which? investigation aren’t a coincidence. Both are newer social-commerce and resale formats, built around a fundamentally different discovery and trust model than an established marketplace, and neither has built out seller-verification infrastructure as mature as platforms that have been fighting counterfeiting for longer. This echoes a pattern that shows up across brand protection generally, newer channels tend to outpace the monitoring infrastructure originally built for older ones, and a brand assuming its existing marketplace monitoring automatically extends to newer social-commerce formats is very often wrong.

    See how Truviss extends detection to social-commerce and resale platforms, not just established marketplaces.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    What detection actually needs for this category

    Since visual and sensory cues aren’t reliable for cosmetics the way they are for some other counterfeit categories, and a product can sell thousands of units before its formulation problem is even noticed, detection has to lean harder on signals that don’t depend on inspecting the product itself. Seller history, pricing anomalies relative to genuine retail (a £40 serum for £12 is itself a signal worth flagging automatically), and image provenance, whether a listing’s product photos have been lifted from the brand’s own official assets or from another seller entirely, all work regardless of how convincing a counterfeit formulation looks or smells. Reverse image search and SKU-level catalogue matching both apply here, arguably more so than in categories where a human reviewer might at least catch an obvious visual tell.

    Getting started

    A cosmetics brand’s starting point looks different from a generic brand-protection checklist. The Which? data points specifically at newer social-commerce and resale platforms as the current weak spot, not just the largest, longest-established marketplaces. Checking exposure on TikTok Shop, Vinted and similar formats, rather than assuming existing Amazon or eBay monitoring already covers them, is the fastest way to find out whether a brand’s actual risk matches where the data says the problem currently concentrates.

  • Why Watch Counterfeiting Broke eBay’s Own Moderation

    Why Watch Counterfeiting Broke eBay’s Own Moderation

    Home/Blog/Why Watch Counterfeiting Broke eBay’s Own Moderation
    Marketplace Protection

    Why Watch Counterfeiting Broke eBay’s Own Moderation

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20266 min read
    Counterfeit Listings IP Infringement Unauthorised Resellers
    Catch counterfeit watch listings before the price threshold does

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner applies continuous, SKU-level monitoring across every marketplace, not just the ones with their own authentication programme.

    Book a demo
    Counterfeit watch detection cover
    TL;DR
    • eBay’s Authenticity Guarantee authenticates every watch sold above $2,000, and counterfeit Rolex listings are still reported slipping past its AI-based moderation.
    • Watches are uniquely hard to police: high per-unit value, convincing fakes built from genuine-looking components, and authentication that only works after purchase.
    • Platform authentication protects one transaction on one platform, not listings below the price threshold, other marketplaces, or a brand’s own visibility.
    • Watches also carry a genuine grey market, easy to confuse with counterfeiting but requiring a different response entirely.

    eBay runs a dedicated authentication programme, Authenticity Guarantee, for any watch selling above $2,000 in the US: a third-party authenticator performs a multi-point physical inspection before the item ships, and eBay covers the cost plus two-day secure shipping. It built that programme because watch counterfeiting is severe enough to warrant dedicated infrastructure. And even with that in place, community reporting and forum discussion (WatchUSeek, Luxury Bazaar) describes eBay’s AI-based moderation failing to remove listings widely recognised as counterfeit Rolexes before they’re ever purchased. If a marketplace with a purpose-built authentication service still can’t fully solve this, that’s about as clear a proof point as exists that platform-side moderation alone has a ceiling, in this category more than almost any other.

    Why watches specifically are the hardest counterfeit category

    Watches sit at an unusual intersection of three factors that make them harder to police than most counterfeit goods. High per-unit value means counterfeiting stays profitable even at low volume, a single convincing fake can be worth pursuing where a cheap accessory wouldn’t be. A convincing fake can also be assembled from genuine-looking individual components, movements, cases, dials sourced and combined separately, rather than manufactured as one obviously fake unit, which makes visual and even mechanical inspection harder than it sounds. And the authentication techniques that do work, checking movement quality, weight, dial printing, serial numbers, all require expertise most buyers don’t have and, more importantly, can only be applied after the item has already arrived, not before purchase.

    Major marketplaces treat luxury counterfeiting broadly as serious enough to warrant category-specific infrastructure, not just generic moderation. Amazon’s Project Zero lets enrolled brands remove counterfeit listings directly, and its Counterfeit Crimes Unit has pursued cases across multiple luxury categories, including joint lawsuits with Salvatore Ferragamo over counterfeit belts and leather goods. That’s a different product category from watches, but it’s the same underlying signal: when counterfeiting in a category gets bad enough, platforms build dedicated enforcement infrastructure rather than relying on the moderation that covers everything else.

    What platform authentication programmes do and don’t cover

    A programme like eBay’s genuinely protects the specific transaction it’s applied to. A watch over $2,000, authenticated and shipped through eBay’s own process, is meaningfully safer than one bought without any verification. But that protection has hard edges. It doesn’t extend to listings below the price threshold, to other marketplaces the same seller might be operating on, or to a brand’s own visibility into who is selling under its name across the internet at all. Platform authentication is a point solution for one transaction on one platform. It isn’t brand-side monitoring, and it was never designed to be.

    This is the same principle behind SKU-level matching wherever it’s applied elsewhere in brand protection, matching a listing against a brand’s actual catalogue rather than trusting a platform’s own generic checks, just made more urgent in a category where the fakes are unusually convincing and the platform’s own tools have a documented gap.

    See how Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner watches for counterfeit listings continuously, not just above one price threshold.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    The parallel-import wrinkle specific to watches

    Watches also carry a genuine grey market that’s easy to confuse with counterfeiting. Authorised-dealer stock gets diverted across regions and resold outside its intended market, which is real, genuine product, just sold through a channel the brand didn’t approve for that region. This is a fundamentally different problem from a counterfeit listing, and treating the two the same way leads to wasted enforcement effort, a grey-market listing generally isn’t reportable as intellectual property infringement the way a counterfeit is, since there’s no fake product involved, only an unauthorised sales channel. A brand needs to tell these two apart before deciding how to respond to either, since the fix for one (a takedown request) does nothing for the other (a distribution or channel-agreement issue).

    What actually catches this at brand scale

    Continuous monitoring across every marketplace a brand’s watches actually sell on, matched against the brand’s real catalogue at SKU level, is what closes the gap that any single platform’s authentication programme leaves open. That coverage has to include marketplaces without their own dedicated authentication service at all, and has to catch listings below whatever price threshold a platform like eBay’s programme happens to use, since counterfeiters have every incentive to price just under that line. Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner applies this detect-verify-enforce approach across marketplaces, watching for counterfeit listings continuously rather than relying on any single platform’s built-in protections to catch everything on a brand’s behalf.

    Getting started

    A watch brand or authorised dealer’s starting checklist looks different from a generic brand-protection one. Confirm which marketplaces actually carry the brand’s sales volume and counterfeit exposure, not just the largest platforms by default. Check whether existing monitoring reaches below whatever price threshold a platform’s own authentication programme covers, since that’s exactly where counterfeiters have the most room to operate undetected. And build a clear process for separating grey-market findings from genuine counterfeit ones before responding to either, since misclassifying one as the other wastes enforcement effort and can even damage a brand’s standing with the platform reviewing future reports.

  • Truviss vs Red Points vs BrandShield: Which Actually Fits?

    Truviss vs Red Points vs BrandShield: Which Actually Fits?

    Home/Blog/Truviss vs Red Points vs BrandShield: Which Actually Fits?
    Marketplace Protection

    Truviss vs Red Points vs BrandShield: Which Actually Fits?

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20267 min read
    IP Infringement Takedowns Marketplace Monitoring
    See where Truviss fits your stack

    SKU-level precision, automated takedowns with human review available, and strong Indian and regional marketplace coverage.

    Book a demo
    Truviss vs Red Points vs BrandShield cover
    TL;DR
    • Red Points, BrandShield and Truviss all offer online brand protection, but differ in matching precision, enforcement model and regional marketplace depth.
    • Red Points and BrandShield are established, broad-coverage platforms built primarily around global marketplaces and social platforms.
    • Truviss differentiates on SKU-level catalogue matching, automated takedowns with an optional human-review step, and stronger native coverage of Indian and regional marketplaces alongside global ones.
    • The right choice depends on where a brand actually sells and how much regional marketplace exposure it has, not just overall platform size.

    How to read this comparison

    Every brand-protection platform in this space, Truviss included, describes itself using similar language: AI-powered detection, automated takedowns, comprehensive coverage. The meaningful differences show up in three specific places: how precisely a platform matches a suspected infringement against a brand’s real catalogue, whether enforcement is automated, human-reviewed, or a mix of both, and which marketplaces a platform actually covers in depth rather than in name only. This comparison focuses on those three, based on publicly available information about each platform.

    Quick comparison

    PlatformDetection approachEnforcement modelRegional marketplace depth
    TruvissSKU-level matching against the brand’s real catalogue, 500+ data points per listingAutomated takedowns, human review available5,000+ marketplaces, strong native coverage of Indian and regional platforms alongside global ones
    Red PointsAI-led detection across marketplaces, social and web at large scaleManaged enforcement, largely automated with expert oversightBroad global coverage, primarily oriented around major international marketplaces
    BrandShieldAI monitoring across marketplaces, websites, ads and socialDetected incidents typically reviewed by an enforcement team before removalBroad global coverage, similarly oriented around major international marketplaces

    This is a summary based on how each company publicly describes its own platform, not an independent benchmark. Verify current specifics directly with each vendor before deciding.

    Detection approach: matching precision

    The core technical difference between brand-protection platforms is how a suspected infringement gets matched against what’s actually genuine. A keyword-only approach flags anything mentioning a brand name, which catches a lot of false positives, genuine resellers, fan content, unrelated mentions, alongside real infringements. Truviss’s approach analyses SKU-level matching, comparing images, pricing and seller history against the brand’s real product catalogue rather than keyword presence alone, which is what lets automated takedowns proceed with lower false-positive risk. Red Points and BrandShield both also use AI-driven detection at scale, though the specific matching methodology and how it’s tuned per brand is generally not published in comparable detail.

    Enforcement model: automated vs human-reviewed

    Some platforms lean toward fully managed enforcement, where a specialist team reviews and actions each detected case, trading some speed for an added layer of judgement on ambiguous ones. Others, including Truviss, default to automated takedowns once a match is verified against the catalogue, with human review available as an option rather than a mandatory step for every case. Neither model is universally better, a heavily managed model can be reassuring for a brand with limited internal resources to review cases itself, while an automated-first model moves faster on the high volume of straightforward cases and reserves human attention for genuinely ambiguous ones.

    See Truviss’s detect, verify, enforce cycle in action across your actual marketplace footprint.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Regional marketplace coverage

    This is where platform choice often matters most in practice. A brand selling primarily through Amazon, eBay and major European or North American marketplaces is well served by most established platforms in this space, since that’s where global brand-protection tooling has matured first. A brand with meaningful exposure on Indian or regional marketplaces, Flipkart, Meesho, and similar platforms, needs to check specifically whether a platform’s coverage genuinely extends there in depth or only lists them nominally. Truviss’s coverage was built with Indian and regional marketplaces as a core focus alongside global ones, which is a specific differentiator worth checking against any platform being evaluated if that’s where a brand’s actual risk sits.

    Choosing between them

    The right platform depends on a brand’s actual footprint more than any single feature comparison. A brand selling almost entirely through major global marketplaces, with a preference for a fully managed enforcement team, may be well served by an established platform like Red Points or BrandShield. A brand with real exposure on Indian or regional marketplaces, wanting SKU-level precision and the option to run enforcement automated-first, is the profile Truviss is built around most directly. The most useful next step for any brand comparing these is checking each platform’s coverage against its own specific list of marketplaces, not a generic feature list.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is Truviss cheaper than Red Points or BrandShield?▼

    Pricing for all three platforms is generally quote-based and depends on catalogue size, channel coverage and enforcement volume, so a direct price comparison isn’t meaningful without a specific quote from each vendor for a brand’s actual requirements.

    Do these platforms cover social media and domains as well as marketplaces?▼

    Yes, all three offer coverage beyond marketplaces, social media impersonation, phishing domains and, for some, app stores and ad networks. The depth of coverage per channel varies, which is worth confirming directly for whichever channels matter most to a specific brand.

    Why does regional marketplace coverage matter if a brand mostly sells on Amazon?▼

    It may not, if Amazon and similar global marketplaces genuinely represent the bulk of a brand’s exposure. It matters specifically for brands with real sales or counterfeit risk on regional platforms that a global-first platform may cover only nominally rather than in depth.

    Can a brand switch platforms later if its needs change?▼

    Generally yes, brand-protection contracts are typically not permanent commitments, though switching does mean re-onboarding a brand’s catalogue and re-establishing enforcement history with the new platform, which is worth factoring into the decision rather than treating the first choice as risk-free to reverse.

  • How to Find & Respond to Unauthorised Sellers Online

    How to Find & Respond to Unauthorised Sellers Online

    Home/Blog/How to Find & Respond to Unauthorised Sellers Online
    Marketplace Protection

    How to Find & Respond to Unauthorised Sellers Online

    Truviss TeamAug 20, 20266 min read
    Counterfeit Listings Unauthorised Resellers Marketplace Monitoring Takedowns IP Infringement
    Catch relisted sellers before customers do

    See how Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner flags unauthorised listings and relisted sellers across 5,000+ marketplaces the moment they reappear.

    Book a demo
    How to Find and Respond to Unauthorised Sellers Online cover
    TL;DR
    • Finding an unauthorised seller and responding to one are two separate skills, and most brands are only built for one of them.
    • Sort sellers into unauthorised resellers, grey market imports, and counterfeit sellers before choosing a response.
    • The earliest signal is the same product code turning up outside authorised channels, not just a new listing.
    • A takedown removes one listing, not the seller. Continuous monitoring catches the relist.

    The problem is really two problems

    Most guidance on unauthorised sellers treats “find and respond” as one motion, but they’re separate skills, and a brand that’s good at only one of them still loses margin. A team that spots every rogue listing but has no enforcement process watches the same sellers operate indefinitely. A team with a sharp legal process but no detection only finds out about a problem after a customer complaint or a distributor’s phone call, by which point the seller has usually been active for months.

    This is Part 1 (find) and Part 2 (respond), covered in that order because the response you should take depends entirely on what you found.

    What actually counts as an unauthorised seller

    Not every seller operating outside your approved list is doing something you can act against legally, and knowing the difference decides which lever you reach for later. See what online brand abuse covers for the broader category this sits inside.

    Unauthorised resellers are moving genuine stock, usually sourced from a legitimate distributor who broke a contract term, outside your approved retailer list. This is a distribution problem, not an IP problem. There’s no counterfeit claim to make, because the product is real.

    Grey market or parallel-import sellers are also moving genuine product, but across regions your distribution agreements don’t cover. Same issue as above: real goods, wrong channel, no infringement claim.

    Counterfeit sellers are the only category with a clean intellectual property claim, because the product itself is fake (what qualifies as a counterfeit listing). This is where trademark and IP enforcement tools actually apply.

    Confusing these categories is the most common way a brand wastes a response. Sending a cease-and-desist to a reseller who simply broke a distribution term, rather than a counterfeiter, is usually unenforceable and burns goodwill with a partner you may still want back on side later.

    Where sellers surface, and the signal that’s easy to miss

    Unauthorised sellers cluster in three places: large marketplaces (Amazon, eBay, Walmart and regional equivalents), social commerce (Instagram and TikTok Shop listings), and open-web storefronts cloning a brand’s product pages directly.

    Most guides on this topic stop at “monitor these channels for new listings.” That catches a seller once they’ve already built a storefront and started selling, which is usually well after the fact. A signal that surfaces earlier: the same product code being verified or scanned by end customers in locations, quantities, or patterns that don’t match your authorised distribution map. That’s a product-level signal, not a listing-crawl signal, and none of the marketplace-monitoring guides built around scraping listings can see it, because it depends on having SKU-level matching set up in the first place (marketplace monitoring covers the listing-side half of this).

    If your product carries any kind of scannable code, this is the earliest warning you’ll get that stock is moving somewhere it shouldn’t, often before a listing has even gone up.

    Build the evidence file before you report anything

    A report filed with a single screenshot gets rejected far more often than one filed with a documented trail. Before submitting anything to a platform, gather: the listing URL and a timestamped capture of it, the seller’s account ID, and, where available, verification-scan data showing where and how often the product code has surfaced outside your authorised channels.

    This is preparation, not the response itself, and it should happen the moment you spot something suspicious, not after you’ve decided how to act. Evidence gathered late is evidence gathered under time pressure, which is when mistakes happen.

    Respond, using the right lever for the category

    Once you know which of the three categories you’re dealing with, three levers are available, roughly in order of speed:

    Marketplace takedown tools are fastest and platform-specific: Amazon’s Report a Violation, eBay’s VeRO programme, Alibaba’s IPP (how a takedown request actually gets evaluated). These work for counterfeit claims and, on some platforms, for authorised-seller-only policy violations too.

    Direct contact with the seller or distributor is the right tool for a policy or contract breach: an unauthorised reseller or a distributor who broke a MAP or territory agreement. No IP claim is needed here, because none exists. This is a contract conversation, not a legal one.

    Legal action, cease-and-desist letters or litigation, is the slowest lever and the one to reserve for counterfeit sellers or repeat offenders who ignore lower-friction responses.

    Matching the lever to the category matters more than moving fast. A marketplace takedown request filed against a legitimate reseller, rather than a counterfeiter, can get rejected outright, and a legal letter sent to the same reseller is often unenforceable since no infringement occurred.

    Why one takedown rarely ends it

    A removed listing doesn’t remove the seller. The same account, or a new one, frequently relists the same product within days, sometimes under a slightly altered title or a fresh seller profile built specifically to avoid the record of the last takedown.

    See how Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner tracks listings and product codes across thousands of marketplaces continuously, flagging a relisting the moment it reappears.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Pairing continuous monitoring with repeat-offender tracking means the same seller account or pattern gets flagged and prioritised automatically the second time round, instead of starting the evidence-gathering process from zero.

    Getting started

    Three things to do before the next unauthorised listing appears, not after:

    1. Check whether you already have product-level verification data (scan or authentication logs) that shows where your product is turning up outside authorised channels. This is often the earliest signal available and the one most brands aren’t looking at yet.

    2. Decide in advance which of the three levers applies to each seller category, so the decision isn’t being made under pressure the first time a listing appears.

    3. Keep the evidence-gathering habit running continuously, not just when you’re about to file a report. A brand that already has a timestamped trail moves through platform review far faster than one starting from a single screenshot.

    Treat detection and response as the two separate disciplines they are, and each half gets noticeably easier.

  • Brand Protection 2026: What’s Actually Working

    Brand Protection 2026: What’s Actually Working

    Home/Blog/Brand Protection 2026: What’s Actually Working
    Marketplace Protection

    Brand Protection 2026: What’s Actually Working

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20268 min read
    Counterfeit Listings IP Infringement Brand Impersonation Takedowns Marketplace Monitoring
    See your brand’s exposure across every channel

    Truviss scans 5,000+ marketplaces, social platforms, app stores, domains and ad networks around the clock.

    Book a demo
    Brand Protection 2026 cover
    TL;DR
    • Counterfeit goods made up an estimated USD 467 billion in global trade in 2021, 2.3% of world trade (OECD/EUIPO), and digital channels have made fakes easier to reach buyers directly than ever before.
    • Brand abuse now spans five fronts: marketplaces, social media, domains, app stores and ad networks, not just counterfeit listings.
    • Governments are naming and tracking the worst offenders: the USTR’s 2025 Notorious Markets List is the latest annual accounting of where counterfeiting concentrates online.
    • A detect, verify, enforce process, run continuously rather than as a periodic sweep, is what actually keeps pace with how fast new infringements appear.

    What digital brand abuse looks like in 2026

    Brand abuse used to mean one thing: a counterfeit product. It now means five. A counterfeit listing undercutting price on a marketplace. A cloned social media profile running a fake giveaway in a brand’s name. A lookalike domain harvesting customer logins. A cloned mobile app collecting data under a familiar-looking icon. A fraudulent ad steering search traffic toward a fake storefront. Each is a distinct attack surface, and each one is a form of online brand abuse that most brands only discover after a customer complains.

    What’s changed isn’t the intent behind any of this, it’s the speed and the surface area. A counterfeit operation no longer needs a warehouse or a distribution deal, just a marketplace account and a copied product photo. A phishing operation no longer needs to compromise a brand’s own servers, just a domain that looks close enough at a glance.

    How big the problem actually is

    Global trade in counterfeit goods reached an estimated USD 467 billion in 2021, equivalent to 2.3% of total world trade, and EU imports of fakes alone were valued at EUR 99 billion (OECD/EUIPO, Mapping Global Trade in Fakes 2025). Clothing, footwear and leather goods jointly accounted for 62% of all counterfeit goods seized globally, categories that also happen to be among the most heavily traded on consumer marketplaces.

    Those figures cover physical seizures. They understate the digital side of the problem, the impersonator accounts, phishing domains and cloned apps that never show up in a customs report because nothing physical ever crosses a border. A brand can lose customer trust to a fake Instagram giveaway or a typosquatted domain without a single counterfeit unit ever being seized.

    The five fronts: where brand abuse actually happens

    Marketplaces remain the biggest single channel, covering everything from major platforms to regional and vertical ones, and quick-commerce apps have added a newer, faster-moving front on top of that. Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner covers 5,000+ of them, matching listings against a brand’s real catalogue at SKU level rather than by keyword alone.

    Social media is close behind: fake profiles and scam pages on Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok and YouTube trade on a brand’s name and following to run scams the real brand never sanctioned. Domains are the quieter threat, lookalike and typosquatted URLs built to harvest logins or payment details before a customer notices the misspelling. App stores add a fourth front, cloned or rogue apps on iOS and Android that mimic a brand’s real app closely enough to pass a casual glance. And ad networks are the fifth, fraudulent ads that redirect paid search or social traffic straight to a fake storefront, quietly spending a competitor’s or counterfeiter’s budget against a brand’s own customers.

    Case in point: a fake sold as genuine on a mainstream marketplace

    This isn’t a hypothetical. Truviss has seen the pattern play out with a real client, one of India’s leading helmet manufacturers, whose helmets were counterfeited and sold on Amazon by unauthorised resellers at 30-40% below the genuine price, with repeat offenders relisting after being reported. It didn’t need to fool every buyer, only enough of them, on a platform mainstream enough that shoppers don’t think to double-check.

    Daily scanning combined with computer vision image matching against the brand’s own catalogue was what eventually mapped the reseller network and gave Amazon’s IP enforcement team enough evidence to act.

    What regulators are doing about it

    Governments are paying closer attention too. The US Trade Representative’s 2025 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, published in 2026, is the latest edition of an annual list naming the online and physical markets where counterfeiting concentrates most. Being named on the list carries no direct legal penalty, but it is a public signal that puts pressure on the platforms and marketplaces involved, and it gives brands and their legal teams a citable, government-sourced reference point when building an enforcement case.

    Regulatory pressure alone doesn’t remove a single fake listing, though. That still comes down to a brand’s own monitoring and enforcement process, applied consistently, not just when a list like this makes headlines.

    Detect, verify, enforce: the process that actually works

    The brands that keep pace treat brand protection as a continuous process, not a periodic clean-up. It comes down to three steps, repeated constantly.

    Detect continuously, not periodically. Scanning that runs 24/7 across every channel where a brand actually has exposure, analysing 500+ data points per listing, images, pricing, seller history and text together, rather than keyword search alone.

    Verify against the brand’s real catalogue, at SKU level. This is what protects genuine resellers and authorised partners from being caught up in enforcement by mistake, and it’s what gives a takedown request credibility with the platform reviewing it.

    Enforce with a documented evidence trail, URLs, screenshots and timestamps logged for every action, not just the immediate takedown but as a record if a case ever needs to escalate beyond a single platform’s own process.

    See how Truviss runs detect, verify, enforce automatically across marketplaces, social media, domains and apps.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    Where to start

    Start with whichever front carries the biggest exposure. For most consumer brands that’s still counterfeit listings on marketplaces, but a brand with a strong social following may find impersonator accounts the more urgent risk, and one running paid acquisition may be losing more to ad fraud than it realises. Get continuous monitoring in place on that one channel first, build a documented takedown process around it, then expand coverage as the process proves itself.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is counterfeiting still mostly a physical-goods problem, or is it mostly online now?▼

    Both, and increasingly the two are connected. A counterfeit product still has to be manufactured somewhere, but the sale, discovery and distribution to the buyer now happens almost entirely through digital channels, marketplaces, social media and search ads, which is why digital monitoring has become as important as any physical enforcement.

    Which channel should a brand worry about first?▼

    Whichever carries the most exposure for that specific brand. A brand sold heavily through third-party marketplaces should prioritise counterfeit listing monitoring; a brand with a large social following should prioritise impersonator detection. There’s no universal answer, it depends on where the brand’s own customers actually are.

    Does being named on a list like the USTR’s Notorious Markets List actually change anything?▼

    It doesn’t remove listings directly, but it adds public and diplomatic pressure on the named markets and platforms, and it gives brands a citable, government-sourced reference point when making the case for stronger enforcement with a specific marketplace or registrar.

    Is this only a problem for large, globally recognised brands?▼

    No. Smaller and regional brands are targeted too, and often with less visibility since they have fewer resources for manual monitoring, which makes continuous, automated detection proportionally more valuable for a smaller team.

  • The Seventh Circuit Just Made Suing Counterfeiters Harder

    The Seventh Circuit Just Made Suing Counterfeiters Harder

    Home/Blog/The Seventh Circuit Just Made Suing Counterfeiters Harder
    Marketplace Protection

    The Seventh Circuit Just Made Suing Counterfeiters Harder

    Truviss TeamAug 15, 20265 min read
    IP Infringement Takedowns Counterfeit Listings
    Build the evidence trail before you need it

    Truviss’s Marketplace Scanner logs timestamped evidence continuously, so it’s ready whichever legal route a case eventually needs.

    Book a demo
    Seventh Circuit counterfeiting ruling cover
    TL;DR
    • Schedule A litigation lets brands sue many “hit-and-run” foreign online sellers at once in a single case, usually in the Northern District of Illinois, often with an asset freeze attached.
    • Two 2026 Seventh Circuit rulings narrowed the jurisdictional and service shortcuts that made these cases move fast against overseas sellers.
    • A separate, unrelated case, Richemont’s suit against a single named “superfake” jewelry seller, shows the different enforcement path available for an identifiable, higher-value counterfeiter.
    • The practical lesson for brands: courts now expect real proof of an actual sale and real service, not shippability and an email, which raises the bar for a brand’s own evidence-gathering too.

    Schedule A litigation has become one of the more effective legal tools brands use against online counterfeiters, and the mechanics explain why. Instead of filing a separate lawsuit against each “hit-and-run” seller, a brand can bring a single federal case naming many foreign-based online sellers at once, identified in an attached schedule of storefront names, URLs, seller IDs and email addresses rather than in the case caption itself. These cases are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, frequently paired with a request to freeze the defendants’ assets before proceeds get moved offshore and out of reach. Rights owners who use Schedule A litigation generally see a significant reduction, sometimes an outright elimination, of the specific infringements targeted.

    The 2026 complication

    Two Seventh Circuit rulings this year have narrowed exactly the procedural shortcuts that made Schedule A cases move as fast as they do. In March, the court in Yinnv Liu v. Monthly et al. vacated a default judgment against online vendors accused of selling counterfeit goods, ruling that checkout-page screenshots showing a product could ship to Illinois aren’t enough to establish personal jurisdiction without actual evidence that a sale happened there. Then, on 29 May 2026, the court held in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. that serving a Chinese defendant by email isn’t sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over them.

    Both rulings target the same two shortcuts that had made Schedule A cases fast and comparatively cheap against overseas sellers, at least within the Seventh Circuit: loose jurisdictional proof based on shippability rather than actual sales, and quick service by email instead of more formal international channels. Neither ruling ends Schedule A litigation as a tool. Both make clear that plaintiffs need a stronger evidentiary record than courts previously required before they’ll get the fast default judgments this approach has relied on.

    A different enforcement path: what happens outside Schedule A

    Not every counterfeiting case follows this pattern, and a recent one shows the alternative clearly. In July 2025, Richemont International, joined by Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, filed suit against a single named defendant, Malidani Jewelry Corp, in the Southern District of New York, alleging the company sold “superfakes,” high-quality replicas of Cartier’s LOVE bracelet, Juste un Clou collection, and Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra line, priced closely enough to the originals to compete directly with them. This is a traditional single-defendant trademark and trade dress case, not a bulk Schedule A filing, and it resolved differently too: a consent judgment gave Richemont a permanent injunction against Malidani plus a $205,000 payment.

    The contrast matters. Schedule A exists specifically for the high-volume, low-value, hard-to-identify “hit-and-run” seller problem, where individually pursuing each of dozens or hundreds of sellers wouldn’t be worth the cost. A single, identifiable, higher-value counterfeiter like Malidani is a different kind of target entirely, and a traditional single-defendant suit with a real settlement and injunction is often the more direct route. Knowing which situation a brand is actually facing, a wave of anonymous foreign storefronts versus one identifiable seller, determines which legal tool actually fits.

    See how Truviss identifies which situation you’re facing, an anonymous seller wave or one identifiable counterfeiter, before you choose an enforcement path.

    Explore Marketplace Scanner

    What this actually means, without overstating either direction

    It would be easy to read the Seventh Circuit rulings two ways, and both would be wrong. This isn’t the collapse of Schedule A litigation, brands are still filing these cases and courts elsewhere haven’t followed the Seventh Circuit’s specific reasoning. But it’s also not a minor procedural footnote. Legal commentary tracking this space has started asking directly whether Schedule A litigation, at least in its fastest and cheapest form, is heading toward a real decline, not because the underlying legal theory is weaker, but because the evidentiary bar for the personal jurisdiction and service shortcuts that made it fast just went up in one circuit that has handled a large share of these cases.

    The practical effect for a brand considering this route: proving that a product could theoretically ship to a jurisdiction is no longer treated as equivalent to proving an actual sale happened there, and emailing a defendant overseas is no longer treated as adequate notice on its own. Both of those used to be enough to get a quick default judgment. Now they aren’t, at least in the Seventh Circuit, and other circuits may or may not follow.

    What this means for a brand’s own evidence-gathering

    The direct lesson for a brand’s own monitoring is about evidence quality, not legal strategy. If courts now expect proof that a sale genuinely occurred in a specific jurisdiction rather than just that a listing could theoretically reach it, a brand’s own documentation needs to move in the same direction, verified transaction records, timestamped screenshots tied to a specific sale, not just a listing’s shipping settings. This is the same underlying principle behind any well-built takedown request, whether it’s aimed at a marketplace’s own reporting process or a Schedule A filing: the strength of the case rests on the quality of the evidence trail collected before anyone files anything, not on the legal mechanism chosen afterward. A brand building that evidence trail continuously, rather than reconstructing it after deciding to pursue a specific legal route, is the one positioned to act quickly whichever direction courts move next.