Why Trademark Takedowns Don’t Have a DMCA Counter-Notice

A seller receives a notice that a listing has been removed for trademark infringement. The platform message looks familiar. There’s a report. There’s a reference to intellectual property. There’s an appeal button—or maybe there isn’t.

The next question almost always follows:

“Where do I file the counter-notice?”

When the answer turns out to be “there isn’t one,” frustration sets in quickly. People assume they’re missing a step, or that the platform is withholding a process they’re entitled to use.

In most cases, neither is true.

Why This Expectation Is So Common

The expectation of a counter-notice makes sense.

For many people, their first exposure to infringement disputes comes through copyright takedowns. The DMCA has trained users to expect a defined notice-and-counter-notice framework, and platforms often use similar terminology—“report,” “notice,” “appeal”—across different types of intellectual property claims.

From the outside, it can look like all takedowns operate under the same rules.

They don’t.

⸻

If it helps to step back, we’ve provided a high-level explanation of trademarks, copyrights, and related rights in our Intellectual Property Overview.

⸻

Trademark Enforcement Is Not Governed by the DMCA

Trademark claims are not covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; they are governed by the Lanham Act. There is no statutory notice-and-counter-notice process for trademark disputes, and there is no legal requirement that platforms offer one.

That means there is no such thing as a “DMCA counter-notice” for a trademark takedown

When a platform removes content based on a trademark complaint, it is acting under its own policies, not a statutory framework designed to balance competing rights through formal rebuttal procedures.

This single distinction explains a great deal of confusion—and a great many dead ends.

What Platforms Are Actually Doing Instead

Because trademark enforcement is policy-driven rather than statute-driven, platforms handle these disputes differently:

• Decisions are often discretionary and risk-based

• Appeals, if available, are informal and inconsistent

• Outcomes can vary even where facts appear similar

In practice, many platforms reuse the same general workflow, structure, and even language across different types of intellectual property complaints. The process often looks and feels similar to a DMCA takedown—notifications, appeals, standardized responses—except that the statutory framework and counter-notice mechanism are absent.

This reuse is usually a matter of efficiency, not intent. At scale, platforms build unified systems to handle a wide range of complaints, and trademark claims are often processed through a modified version of that same infrastructure. The result is a process that resembles a DMCA flow without actually being one.

From the platform’s perspective, this approach minimizes liability exposure. From the user’s perspective, it often feels opaque or arbitrary.

Both reactions are understandable.

What matters is recognizing that once a trademark complaint is involved, the familiar DMCA playbook no longer applies.

Where Trademark Takedowns Break Down in Practice

Trademark complaints are frequently broader than copyright claims, and they are easier to misuse.

Common breakdowns include:

• Assertions that go beyond source identification and into market control

• Competitor-driven complaints designed to disrupt sales rather than protect marks

• Claims that conflate branding, keywords, or descriptive use with infringement

At that point, continuing to look for the “right” platform form rarely helps. The issue is no longer procedural—it’s substantive.

Trademark Enforcement Has Limits

Trademark law protects consumers from confusion about source. It does not grant unlimited power to suppress competition or control markets.

When trademark complaints are inaccurate, overbroad, or asserted in bad faith, enforcement can create legal risk for the complainant. Depending on the circumstances, that risk may include tortious interference or other business-tort theories.

This is not about discouraging legitimate enforcement. Trademark rights matter, and proper enforcement serves an important purpose.

It is about recognizing that trademark enforcement tools are not consequence-free, and that misuse is not insulated simply because a platform acted first.

What Changes Once You Accept There Is No Counter-Notice

Once it’s clear that no formal rebuttal process exists, the strategy has to change.

Repeated appeals often produce the same result because they are evaluated under the same policy lens. In some situations, reframing the dispute in legal terms—rather than policy terms—becomes necessary.

That shift may involve:

• Clarifying the actual scope of the asserted trademark rights

• Addressing misstatements or overreach directly

• Recognizing when the platform is no longer the real decision-maker

This is where many disputes either resolve—or escalate.

Documentation Still Matters

Even without a counter-notice process, documentation remains critical.

Preserve:

• The original complaint language

• Dates and timestamps of all actions

• Screenshots of listings and account changes

• Copies of all communications

Clear, chronological documentation often determines whether a dispute can be corrected or meaningfully escalated.

The Takeaway

Trademark takedowns feel confusing because they operate under a fundamentally different framework than copyright takedowns. There is no statutory counter-notice, and platform processes are driven by policy rather than law.

Understanding that difference early prevents wasted effort—and helps clarify when a dispute is about platform rules, and when it has crossed into something else entirely.