A customer sends a screenshot: someone's selling a fake of the company's best product, reviews and all. The brand-protection lead reports it, and it's back under a new name in a week.

A brand-protection lead gets a screenshot from a customer: a marketplace listing selling what looks exactly like the company's flagship product, at half the price, with reviews already piling up. She checks the platform's own reporting tool, files a takedown, and it's back under a different seller name within the week. The company's outside litigation counsel is excellent at trying cases and has never run a marketplace sweep in its life. She searches that afternoon for someone who has.

IP infringement recovery is the lawsuit that sometimes follows a use. This page is the protection and takedown work that tries to get there first, before a single use becomes a flood of them. See IP infringement recovery for the litigation side.

The listing is already a search by the time it matters

Most brand-protection work has arrived two ways: leftovers from a law firm already overloaded with the brand's other litigation, or a crisis spike after a seizure makes headlines. Both are real, and both are also leftovers. The brand that just found a new listing today, before any of that, is not in either caseload, and searches instead.

What a buyer is actually searching

The GC or brand lead types brand protection, counterfeit seller, marketplace counterfeit, diverted goods investigator, the same week they found the listing. Some search Amazon brand protection or Alibaba counterfeit specifically, naming the channel where they actually found it. A campaign that does not work that channel should not bid that query.

Lawyers who refer this work search a different way, IP recovery firm to refer, brand protection specialist, and belong on the LinkedIn side of this campaign rather than the Google side built for the GC who just found a listing.

Objections we hear

Our outside counsel already does this. Then they do, unless they are too slow, too generalist, or conflicted between the brand's litigation and a fast-moving marketplace sweep. That gap is exactly what sends a GC searching.

The marketplace handles it. Platforms take down what gets reported to them. They do not run the brand's investigation, identify the seller behind an account, or map where the counterfeits are coming from.

We'll wait for a lawsuit. Waiting is how one listing becomes five. The buyer searching today has usually already seen the second seller appear.

The work has phases, and brands searching for one often need another

Takedowns, seller identification, supply-chain tracing, and a later infringement action are different phases of the same problem, and a diverted genuine product is not the same file as an outright fake, with a different remedy for each. A large brand with an existing brand-protection process usually searches because the process missed a specific channel.

A mid-size brand with no process at all usually searches with a photo of a fake and no plan, and wants someone who can start this week. A firm built for one of those buyers should say so plainly rather than bidding both queries as if they were the same engagement.

A trademark-filing mill is not this work either. The buyer found a listing, not a registration gap, and if a firm does not actually take down sellers and trace sources, it should not sit on this query pretending otherwise.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

What runs, and what we will not do

Google ads built around the specific search a GC or brand lead actually types, and the specific marketplace they found the listing on, not one generic "trademark" campaign competing for every unrelated query in the category. Foundational web presence, so the click lands on a firm that reads as a brand-protection specialist, not a general IP page.

LinkedIn placements aimed at litigators who refer this work when it doesn't fit their own docket, run as material worth their time, never as InMail, connection-request sequences, or direct messages. We do not run that channel, and it is not part of this program under any name.

What we will not do: mail every brand with a trademark registration. We do not build a solicitation list of brands, and we do not write, mail, or phone a GC who has not searched or asked. We make the firm findable. The firm does the takedown and the tracing.

Why a generalist agency gets this practice wrong

Most agencies will not take the time to learn how a brand-protection practice actually gets sold, because the practice is specialized, the phases are different from each other, and understanding them does not scale the way a bigger ad budget does. They want volume regardless of what it turns into, and a campaign built for volume wastes spend on brands with a registration but no actual infringement to chase.

This campaign is built around the brand that already found a listing or a diversion and needs an answer this week, not the browser researching trademark registration in the abstract.

Referring litigators matter as much as the search itself

A meaningful share of this work still arrives through litigation counsel who already represents the brand but cannot run a marketplace sweep or a supply-chain trace themselves. That relationship deserves deliberate attention, not whichever firm happens to come up when someone finally asks around.

The LinkedIn side of this program exists for exactly that: a small number of paid placements in front of the litigators who send this work, built as material on the phases of a real brand-protection engagement, not an ad asking for a meeting.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms, Google and, where it runs, LinkedIn. ROI Wire bills a retainer that scales with that spend, not a flat project fee and not a percentage of closed files.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Copywriting, directory work, and the reputation surfaces a GC checks before trusting a firm with a live matter sit under this track as the credibility layer that holds the traffic, not as a correspondence program running in parallel. Ads can be live in under a week. Approval on your side, the keywords, the spend, the page the click lands on, usually determines the timeline, not the platforms.

Who this fits, and who it does not

This fits firms that actually run brand-protection and counterfeit work, test buys, seller identification, platform notices, customs recordation, in the channels and phases they actually work. The lead worth the spend is a live listing or a live diversion, not a trademark filing with no infringement behind it.

It does not fit a firm that wants to mail every brand with a trademark registration, which is outbound work, not this program. It does not fit a trademark-filing mill with no takedown or tracing capability. That is not IP infringement recovery either, which is the litigation that sometimes follows, and lives on its own page.