Counterfeit listings appear on every major marketplace: from Shopee and Trendyol in Asia and MENA to Depop, Fruugo, and Wish in Western markets. Each platform has a formal Intellectual Property (IP) protection and reporting system, but enforcement requires platform-specific registration, documentation, and continuous monitoring, and manual reporting alone cannot keep pace with the volume infringers operate at.
This guide covers the exact reporting process on each platform, the structural limitations of manual enforcement, and what brands operating at scale do instead.
TL;DR
- Counterfeit trade reached $467 billion globally (2.3% of imports)
- Marketplaces enable rapid listing creation and cross-border selling
- Each platform requires different documentation, workflows, and follow-up
- Manual enforcement creates a “whack-a-mole” effect
- Scalable protection requires automation + human validation
Why marketplaces remain a primary counterfeit channel
The structural conditions that make marketplaces efficient for legitimate sellers are the same ones that make them difficult to police. Low barriers to entry, fast listing creation, and cross-border logistics with minimal friction allow counterfeit operations to scale at a pace enforcement cannot match
This is not an edge case.
- 1 in 3 customers stop buying after a bad counterfeit experience
- Counterfeit trade continues to scale through marketplaces and small parcel shipping
- 79% of seizures now involve small shipments, making detection harder
The business impact is measurable:
- Revenue loss from diverted sales
- Increased customer support costs
- Long-term brand erosion and trust decline
Why manual reporting fails at scale
The standard recommendation is clear: brands should monitor marketplaces and report counterfeit listings. In practice, this approach breaks down quickly due to structural limitations in how marketplaces operate and how counterfeiters behave.
1. Search limitations
The first failure point is discovery – counterfeit listings are deliberately structured to avoid the keyword searches brands use to find them.
- Misspellings and altered brand names
- Generic product descriptions without trademarks
- Image-only listings with no searchable text
As a result, a significant portion of infringing listings never surface in manual searches, creating immediate blind spots.
2. Volume overload
Even when listings are found, the volume quickly exceeds what any manual process can handle.
- A single SKU can generate hundreds of listings
- Listings appear across multiple platforms simultaneously
- New listings are uploaded continuously
This creates a clear imbalance: brands process tens of takedowns per day, while counterfeiters upload at a much higher rate.
3. Documentation and workflow friction
Even after identifying infringing listings, the reporting process itself introduces operational bottlenecks that slow enforcement.
- Each platform requires different submission forms and evidence formats
- Documentation must be repeatedly uploaded across platforms
- Claims are often delayed or rejected due to formatting inconsistencies
This fragmented workflow increases time per takedown and limits how much enforcement can scale.
4. Repeat offenders
The deepest structural problem is that removing a listing does not remove the seller – infringers treat takedowns as a minor operational cost, not a deterrent.
- Sellers relist the same product within hours
- Accounts are easily recreated or rotated
- Networks operate across multiple marketplaces simultaneously
This creates the “whack-a-mole” effect: listings disappear temporarily, but the underlying source of infringement remains active.
The result is a structural gap: manual enforcement operates linearly, while counterfeit activity scales exponentially.
What you need before reporting counterfeits
Across Trendyol, Shopee, Depop, Fruugo, Bonanza, and Wish, the documentation baseline is consistent:
- Trademark registration
- Proof of ownership or authorization
- URLs of infringing listings
- Screenshots and product comparisons
- Company verification documents
Incomplete submissions are a leading cause of rejection and delay.
Platform-by-platform enforcement breakdown
Trendyol: regional marketplace with jurisdiction-dependent enforcement
Trendyol is Turkey’s largest eCommerce platform, with ~30 million active users, and is expanding into MENA and Eastern Europe. This regional concentration creates a critical enforcement nuance: IP rights must be valid in Turkey, not just globally.
How reporting works
Brands must register in Trendyol’s IP protection system and submit trademark documentation. However, a Turkish trademark or proof of commercial use in Turkey is often required. Brands relying only on EU or US trademarks frequently see higher rejection rates.
Reporting process
- Register as a brand owner via Trendyol’s IP system
- Submit trademark documentation for verification
- Search for counterfeit listings manually
- Collect evidence (URLs, screenshots, product comparison)
- Submit infringement complaint through the platform
- Monitor responses and provide additional documentation if requested
What makes Trendyol different
- Listings are primarily in Turkish, including localized brand variations
- English keyword searches miss a large portion of infringements
- Seller onboarding has relatively low identity verification
Operational reality
Takedowns are typically fast (1–3 days), but enforcement depth is limited:
- Sellers frequently relist under new accounts
- Listings reappear using language variations
- Detection – not removal – is the main bottleneck
Shopee: high-scale ecosystem with regional enforcement variability
Shopee operates across 9 markets – including Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Brazil – with a centralized IP Protection (IPP) system.
How reporting works
Brands register in the IPP portal, submit trademark documentation, and report listings individually or in bulk. One key advantage: Shopee supports image-based search, making it more effective at detecting visual counterfeits than keyword-only systems.
Reporting process
- Register in Shopee’s IP Protection (IPP) portal
- Submit trademark and business documentation
- Search listings using keywords and images
- Identify infringing listings
- Submit takedown request with evidence
What makes Shopee different
- Enforcement speed varies by region – Singapore is faster, while Indonesia and Philippines are slower
- Listings appear in multiple local languages, creating discovery gaps
- Seller verification is relatively weak
Operational reality
The takedown process itself is efficient. The challenge is structural:
- Sellers reopen accounts easily
- Listings reappear across different countries
- Counterfeits scale across regions simultaneously
On Shopee, the bottleneck is not enforcement speed – it is continuous detection across markets and languages.
Depop: peer-to-peer marketplace with limited enforcement infrastructure
Depop, owned by Etsy since 2021, operates as a peer-to-peer resale platform focused on secondhand and vintage fashion. This fundamentally changes enforcement dynamics.
How reporting works
Depop has no brand registry or IP portal. All enforcement relies on:
- In-app reporting
- Direct email submissions
Bulk enforcement is not supported.
Reporting process
- Locate the counterfeit listing
- Use the “Report” button within the app
- Select “counterfeit item” as the reason
- Provide details and evidence
- Submit report or contact support via email
What makes Depop different
- Sellers are primarily individual consumers, not organized counterfeit networks
- Listings often lack sufficient data to confirm authenticity
- Counterfeit vs. secondhand authenticity is often ambiguous
Operational reality
Listings can be removed, but enforcement depth is limited:
- Seller bans are inconsistent
- Repeat infringement is common
- Brands often need test purchases to prove counterfeit activity
On Depop, the constraint is not speed – it is lack of structured enforcement and evidence limitations.
Fruugo: cross-border marketplace with fragmented enforcement impact
Fruugo operates as a cross-border marketplace, translating listings into 28 languages and supporting 40+ currencies. It does not hold inventory, acting purely as an intermediary.
How reporting works
Brands must register as rights holders and submit documentation before filing complaints. Enforcement is handled centrally but applied locally.
Reporting process
- Register as a rights holder
- Submit IP documentation
- Identify counterfeit listings
- Submit complaint via Fruugo’s system
- Track enforcement progress
What makes Fruugo different
- Sellers operate across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously
- Listings are automatically localized across regions
- Enforcement is jurisdiction-specific, not global
Operational reality
Takedowns take 3–7 days, but success is fragmented:
- Removing a listing in one country does not remove it elsewhere
- The same seller can remain active across multiple regions
- Enforcement must be repeated per market
Fruugo’s complexity lies in cross-border duplication, not just listing volume.
Wish: high-risk marketplace with jurisdiction-dependent IP enforcement
Wish has been widely associated with counterfeit activity and has appeared on regulatory watchlists in the EU. While its user base has declined since its peak (2019–2021), it remains a relevant risk channel.
How reporting works
Brands must join the Wish Brand Registry and submit infringement reports with supporting documentation.
A critical nuance: trademark rights must match the region of infringement. A US trademark alone is insufficient to remove listings targeting EU buyers.
Reporting process
- Register in Wish Brand Registry
- Submit trademark documentation
- Search for counterfeit listings
- File infringement report
- Monitor enforcement status
What makes Wish different
- High concentration of low-cost, high-volume listings
- Strong overlap with cross-platform seller networks
- Listings optimized for rapid replication
Operational reality
Takedowns are relatively fast (1–3 days), but:
- Sellers remain active across multiple platforms
- Listings reappear quickly
- Wish is rarely the only source of infringement
Effective enforcement on Wish requires cross-platform strategy, not isolated action.
Bonanza: lower-scale marketplace with limited enforcement infrastructure
Bonanza operates at a smaller scale but follows similar structural patterns to larger marketplaces.
How reporting works
Listings are reported via platform tools or support channels, with standard IP documentation required.
Reporting process
- Locate infringing listing
- Use the reporting feature or contact support
- Provide IP documentation
- Submit takedown request
What makes Bonanza different
- Lower marketplace traffic
- Limited automation and enforcement tooling
- Less mature IP protection systems
Operational reality
Even at lower volume, the same constraints apply:
- Manual reporting
- Limited deterrence for repeat sellers
- Ongoing monitoring required
Bonanza is not a primary risk channel, but it contributes to long-tail infringement exposure.
Why takedowns alone don’t solve the problem
Manual enforcement creates a predictable loop:
- One listing removed → multiple reappear
- One seller removed → network continues
- One platform cleaned → others remain active
This is not a reporting issue. It is a scale and system design issue.
How Red Points’ scalable enforcement works: from manual reporting to automated detection
Platforms like Red Points address this by replacing manual workflows with AI-driven detection, image recognition, and automated takedown submission across all covered channels simultaneously. But the technology is only part of the model. Red Points operates as a fully managed service, meaning brands don’t run the platform themselves. A dedicated team of IP-Ops specialists handles detection, validation, enforcement, and programme optimisation on behalf of clients, so enforcement runs continuously without requiring internal resources to manage it day-to-day.
This distinction matters. Most brand protection tools require internal teams to review detections, prioritise cases, and submit takedowns manually. Red Points inverts that model: the IP-Ops team manages the operational layer, while clients retain visibility and strategic oversight through a real-time dashboard showing detections, enforcement actions, and infringement trends by channel and geography.
Every client is assigned a dedicated Customer Success Manager and implementation specialist. Onboarding covers channel prioritisation, trademark documentation, and rule configuration, after which the platform moves into live enforcement with no ongoing operational burden on the brand’s internal team.
The standard
Brands must monitor marketplaces continuously and enforce IP rights across channels.
The friction
Manual workflows break under:
- Volume
- Platform fragmentation
- Seller network behavior
The pivot
This is where platforms like Red Points enable a different model.
Instead of manual detection:
- Monitor Amazon, eBay, Temu, Shein, TikTok Shop, and Instagram simultaneously
- Use image recognition and AI to detect hidden listings
- Automate enforcement across platforms
- Identify seller networks, not just individual listings
At the same time, automation alone is not enough.
Why human expertise still matters
- Validating edge cases
- Managing authorized seller relationships
- Avoiding false positives
- Handling escalations
Red Points’ managed services model addresses a key concern brands have: balancing scale with accuracy
Case study: How Red Points scales enforcement beyond manual limits
Problem
Asics, a leading global footwear brand faced thousands of counterfeit listings across marketplaces, overwhelming internal teams.
Solution
Red Points deployed automated detection, image recognition, and seller network analysis with expert validation.
Result
- 1.78M images scanned
- 1.2M infringements enforced
- Scale increased from 150 to 20,000 monthly takedowns
Final takeaways
- Marketplace reporting systems are necessary, but not sufficient
- Counterfeiters scale faster than manual enforcement
- Seller networks, not listings, are the real problem
- Manual workflows create operational bottlenecks
Brands that continue relying on manual takedowns alone will remain in reactive mode.
FAQs: Reporting and removing counterfeits online
A counterfeit listing is any product that uses your trademark, branding, or product identity without authorization to imitate your original goods. These are fake products, not just unauthorized resellers.
Most platforms remove listings within 1 to 7 days, depending on documentation and verification status. However, removal speed does not prevent the same listing from reappearing shortly after.
In most cases, yes. Platforms typically require a valid trademark and proof of ownership. Without it, claims are often rejected or delayed.
Because enforcement targets individual listings rather than seller networks. Sellers can quickly relist products or switch accounts, making reappearance common.
No, manual reporting cannot scale to the volume of infringements on platforms like Wish, Depop, and Fruugo. Some platforms allow bulk reporting, but most still require individual evidence per listing. This limits how much enforcement can be scaled manually.
You need proof of trademark ownership, links to infringing listings, screenshots, and a clear explanation of the violation. Incomplete submissions often lead to rejection.
Platforms are expected to act on valid complaints, but enforcement standards vary. Responsibility ultimately remains with the brand to monitor and report infringements.
Manual reporting cannot match the volume of counterfeit listings. Brands remove listings one by one, while counterfeiters upload at a much higher rate.
The standard is continuous monitoring and enforcement across platforms. The limitation is that manual processes cannot sustain this. This is where solutions like Red Points enable automated detection and enforcement at scale, supported by human validation – through Managed Services -for accuracy.
Counterfeits lead to lost revenue, damaged reputation, and declining customer trust. Many affected customers never report the issue, but stop purchasing from the brand entirely.
