I am facing Critical Issue regarding my inventory


I think trading standards would disagree. Knowingly handling / transporting counterfeit goods would be an offence in itself.

If you had your own shop and had any stock which was reported to you as ‘inauthentic’ they’d expect you to stop selling it immediately.

They wouldn’t expect you to just take it to your supplier and hand it back, they’d either want you to dispose of it (after reporting it to them for investigation), or just hand it over to them for testing.

Given the size of Amazon, the question is whether trading standards could ever handle the amount of enquiries if Amazon reported every case.


Why to dispose if I own the product and have legal documents to proof its authenticity and genuineness
But Amazon Still not listening


Short Story of Ours:

I got an IP Complaint, unfortunately.
I tried to resolve the matter with Listing Owner but he did not even bother to reply us on the email provided by Amazon seller central.
Then I was forced to acknowledge the IP violation to resolve the issue and I have done it.
Afterward, I went for order removal for my inventory at Amazon Fulfilment center but can not create a removal order.
Amazon told me that your Inventory is in FC processing, it will be available for Order removal after 3 days.
But After 3 days, I got an alert email from Amazon that my inventory will be destroyed if you do not provide us with the proof of the product was legal and genuine.

I have purchased the product from the manufacturer directly and they have given us the invoice which undertakes the genuineness of the product and our ownership.
But then again, Amazon was not satisfied and demanded the details of the wholesaler, and contact number to counter-check our claim but did not contact our supplier.
Again send us the same email again that if and the will leads to the destruction of my property.

How come can Amazon destroy my own property for which I have legal documents and lawful standing?
It’s really harsh for us to cope with such dealing from Amazon.

I want my Property shipped back to me or otherwise, I will approach some appropriate legal forum in the UK for this unwanted situation


You’ve basically stated to Amazon that the product is counterfeit, and then asked why they don’t now believe it’s not counterfeit.


This is not the case though, there is no reason to suspect that the goods are either illegally obtained or not authentic.

There is a huge legal difference between knowingly handling and transporting stolen or counterfeit goods and transporting goods which have not been proven to be stolen or counterfeit.

Every day, couriers handle all manner of goods which are not accompanied either by proof of ownership or proof of authenticity.

The law is structured to require proof of an item to either be stolen or counterfeit for a reason and not the other way around.

Also I think your final point is particularly worrying, just because the legal authority in question does not have the resources to apply the law does not mean that legal authority can be passed over to any other person by default.

Imagine if every time you parked your car in a public car park someone were to hold your car until you could prove it was:
1.Not counterfeit (good luck with that unless you bought it from new)
2. Legally yours (again good luck with that given the V5 explicitly says it is not proof of ownership)


Best way I found out to go around this is order 10 units from alibaba from a proper manufacturer then send amazon the invoice they will accept


Did they state that? Or did they list and authentic item under the incorrect ASIN.

If you sell a “Blue Car Company” car under an advert for “Red Car Company”, the underlying item is not counterfeit, it is advertised incorrectly / mis advertised / mis sold. Very different area of law.


By accepting the violation, op has technically admitted it
Op should have appealed


That won’t work in ops case


See above… Amazon received an IP complaint (so are now ‘Knowing’)

That’s not the same analogy. “Owning” counterfeit goods isn’t the same as trading / dealing-in them.

In this case, it’s not. It might be a mistake, but it’s a potentially costly one.
For online sales, it’s the sellers responsibility to make sure the description matches the product exactly.

It seems harsh, but imagine a seller of “Dison” electrical goods listing against items with the “Dyson”, brand. They might both be vacuum cleaners, and even look and function identically. But in the eyes of the law (and consumers) they’re not the same.
Would that be a genuine mistake, or would that be a seller trying to pass off counterfeit goods?
What if the seller was “New” and “didn’t realise they couldn’t do that”, does that then make it OK?

Just because you may never have heard of a brand, doesn’t give the brand any less rights, legally.


If Amazon either hold that stock or destroy it on the basis that OP clicked a button and subsequently made Amazon aware of their position with respect to being both the stock owner and the goods being authentic then Amazon have no legal basis to do so.

If anything, should it get there Amazon may well get a wrap around the knuckles for coercive behaviour in pushing people to accept violations in order to restore account functionality in absence of a properly functioning audit/appeal system.

A large part of the reason the OP finds themselves in this position is due to a completely inadequate customer support (sellers are customers of Amazon, Amazon bill sellers fees) system and it’s about time people stood up to this, raised awareness of it and held Amazon to account for what they have been doing and continue to do.

This is an incredibly simple case to resolve even once the original violation of policy by the seller has either knowingly or unknowingly taken place.


No, the reason op finds themselves in this position is because they listed on the incorrect asin
Most likely as it was selling for £12 on there as opposed to £6 on the correct listing and product cost op £4



If you sell or supply inauthentic products, we may immediately suspend or terminate your Amazon selling account (and any related accounts) and dispose of any inauthentic products in our fulfilment centres at your expense.

One of the policies you agree to when you sign up as a seller.


This is why I never do FBA. I sell products that I have made for me in the Far East, my designs, but they are sold on the net, and on here under my own brand name and marketing. If they asked me to present an invoice for them, the invoice would in no way match whats on the ‘listing’ as its from the factory I import from and the part number and description have no reference to my brand, or even a description.


In this case, if we take OP on face value the goods are authentic.

I restate the legal point that something that is incorrectly advertised is not by default inauthentic.

A red car company car incorrectly advertised as a blue car company car is still an authentic red car company car and that is the legal distinction between authenticity and an advertising problem.

As long as the OP’s goods are authentic to their actual identity and not counterfeit and they are legally owned by the OP then there is no legal basis to hold or destroy them regardless of what ASIN they were sent in under.


Without commenting on the specifics of why the OP sent in under the incorrect ASIN, is your position that if a seller mislabels goods (we are not talking about counterfeiting here, we’re talking about putting the wrong barcodes on products) that they should be destroyed?

To be clear, my position is that Amazon should investigate what goods are in their hands and where they are not counterfeit, stolen or the ASIN labelled return them to sellers (at cost to sellers).


Exactly. If someone sends out a pair of Nike shoes listed under an Addidas shoe listing, they aren’t ‘fake Addidas’


The problem is, that Amazon can only see one side of this.
The details of the product are clearly displayed on the listings. ie. the Brand Name, The EAN number, and the actual content of the product etc.
So a seller comes along and has free access to this information, when applying to sell, you actually agree that the product is the same and understand the consequences of it being incorrect.

So with the above knowledge, the seller then knowingly sends stock that is similar, but not identical.
That is effectively trying to game the system, whether purposely or not and the products sent, (as per the original listing) are effectively counterfeit. So when found out, they have to prove the product is identical to the listing and if they cannot, they are counterfeit.


If you are not willing to take the advice of UK sellers who have been in this game for many years what is the point in making another thread to be combative? We are all here to be respectful and help one another. No one here is obliged to make the time to help someone with no respect or appreciation.


Your implication is that there’s a difference between ‘Mistakenly’ and ‘Intentionally’ advertising a product as a different product.
How does a platform like Amazon prove either way?

Trade Marks Act 1994
Forfeiture: England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
… Where there has come into the possession of any person in connection with the investigation… goods which, bears a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Misleading omissions
A commercial practice is a misleading omission if… the commercial practice omits / hides material information… provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or… the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent… and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
“material information” means…
The information which the average consumer needs … to take an informed transactional decision
Where a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase, the following information will be material the main characteristics of the product, to the extent appropriate to the medium by which the invitation to purchase is communicated and the product;

It’s the sellers responsibility.
Whether they did it on purpose or not doesn’t mean that they haven’t still committed an offence.

If Amazon didn’t take the stance that the items were counterfeit, they’d be in legal trouble for continuing to circulate the goods.
It may be “Jims Bits” vs “Jons Bits” or “Apple” vs “Appel”, but it’s a one-rule fit’s all situation.