IP Takedown Notices in China: Evidence, Counter-Notices and Follow-Up

By Pan Jianxing · Published 20 September 2026

A platform complaint can interrupt an infringing offer, but the filing should also prepare the rights holder for what happens after the seller responds. For a foreign brand, the practical question is whether the evidence supports the particular removal requested and whether a Chinese administrative complaint or lawsuit can be started promptly if necessary.

This article addresses IP complaints against sellers on e-commerce platforms operating in China. A complaint about content on a different type of online service may engage a different combination of rules. The platform's role, the right asserted and the conduct complained of should be identified before selecting a submission route.

Build a complaint around an identifiable right and listing

Article 42 of the E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China requires preliminary evidence of infringement. It provides for necessary measures and forwarding the notice to the seller. Failure to act promptly can expose the platform to joint liability for the resulting additional harm; the provision does not make every allegation an automatic entitlement to permanent removal.

The Supreme People's Court's Guiding Opinions on IP Civil Cases Involving E-Commerce Platforms, Fa Fa [2020] No. 32, paragraph 5, describe a written notice containing proof of rights, the rights holder's true identity, information locating the goods or services, preliminary infringement evidence and an assurance of authenticity.

A useful submission file therefore separates four questions:

• Who can complain? Identify the owner and explain any assignment, licence or representative authority relied on. Resolve differences between the name on a certificate, the contracting company and the complainant.
• What is protected? Identify the relevant Chinese trademark right or the particular copyright work. A brand presentation should not obscure which right the listing allegedly infringes.
• Where is the conduct? Record the product URL, listing identifier, seller identity and relevant product options. A shop homepage alone may leave the reviewer unable to locate the disputed offer.
• Why does it infringe? Present a short comparison explaining the disputed signs, images or copied expression. Distinguish an allegedly counterfeit product from unauthorised use of a photograph advertising an otherwise genuine product.

Preserve evidence before asking for removal

Capture the listing as it appeared, with its context, date, seller details and available sales information. Retain original files and collection records. Where the physical product matters, consider a documented purchase and preserve the order, payment, delivery packaging and product together. Whether notarisation or another preservation method is appropriate depends on the evidence and anticipated dispute.

Keep a clean working copy for the platform and the underlying evidence for later proceedings. Downscaling images, cropping identifying details or replacing original files with an annotated slide can make the submission easier to read while weakening the retained record. The comparison should supplement the source material.

Read the counter-notice before deciding to escalate

Under Article 43, a seller may submit a declaration supported by preliminary evidence of non-infringement. The platform forwards it to the rights holder. A response may raise a genuine authorisation, ownership, scope or authenticity issue. Check the actual document and the relevant products, territory and dates before treating it as a procedural obstacle.

For example, in a hypothetical photograph complaint, the seller may produce a licence from the brand's former creative agency. The decisive work is to examine what the agency owned and could license. Repeating that the brand paid for the campaign does not resolve that question.

Understand what starts the 15-day period

Article 43 measures the period from the forwarded declaration reaching the rights holder. If the platform receives no notification within 15 days that the rights holder has complained to the relevant authority or sued, it must promptly terminate the measures. The clock does not start with the original complaint or the initial takedown. The statute says days, not working days.

The Civil Code, Articles 1195–1197, supplies related rules for online services and uses a reasonable period for counter-notice follow-up. Its Articles 200–204 address period calculation, including excluding the starting day and handling a final day that is a statutory holiday. Those rules should be applied to the actual delivery record, rather than to an assumed email date.

There is a further qualification: paragraph 3 of the Supreme People's Court's Reply on Several Issues Concerning Online IP Infringement Disputes, Fa Shi [2020] No. 9, addresses a reasonable period, excludes delays caused by circumstances outside the rights holder's control such as notarisation or authentication, and states a maximum of 20 working days. This is not a universal replacement of Article 43 with a 20-working-day allowance. Any reliance on the qualification needs a documented basis and timely communication with the platform.

Prepare the escalation route before filing the first notice. Preserve evidence that the relevant complaint or lawsuit was actually submitted and that the platform received the follow-up notification. An internal decision to sue, an unfinished filing or another message repeating the original complaint does not establish that these steps occurred.

Separate platform action from the final dispute

Article 44 requires publicity of notices, declarations and outcomes. Article 45 separately requires necessary measures where the platform knows or should know of infringement. Preserve repeat-listing history and earlier findings where relevant. Removal or restoration nevertheless does not finally determine ownership, infringement or damages.

Article 42 also addresses erroneous notices and doubled compensation for malicious erroneous notices; paragraph 5 of the 2020 Reply recognises a proven good-faith defence. Review disputed rights honestly and correct material errors promptly. For a coordinated evidence and follow-up assessment, contact Pan Jianxing with the rights documents, listing links, counter-notice and delivery timeline.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →