Fake Online Store Using My Brand Name (Philippines)

By Cybercode.ph Editorial Team

Last materially reviewed: September 6, 2026

Direct Answer

File the marketplace’s intellectual property complaint first. Shopee, Lazada and TikTok Shop each run a rights-owner IP portal that removes listings far faster than any Philippine court or agency, and Republic Act No. 11967 makes an e-marketplace subsidiarily liable if it fails, after notice, to remove infringing goods. Capture the listing URL, seller ID and order records before you report. Escalate to DTI, IPOPHL or the police second.

Key Takeaways

• A marketplace listing and a standalone fake shop site are different problems: one has an IP portal, the other has a registrar, host and payment processor.
• RA 11967, Section 26(b) makes an e-marketplace subsidiarily liable where it “[f]ailed, after notice, to act expeditiously in removing or disabling access to goods or services that… infringe on another’s intellectual property rights”. Your written notice is what starts that clock.
• The DTI Secretary may issue an ex parte takedown order covering counterfeit goods (RA 11967, Section 15) and maintain a public blacklist of non-compliant platforms (Section 16).
• Trademark rights come from registration (RA 8293, Section 122). Without one you cannot sue under Section 155, but Sections 165.2 and 168 remain open.
• IPOPHL’s Enforcement Office takes online reports and asks for the shop URL or name.
• Where customers paid and received nothing, the case is also computer-related fraud under RA 10175, Section 4(b)(2).
• Takedown is faster than litigation. Neither is guaranteed, and sellers relist.

On This Page

• Immediate first steps
• Decision snapshot
• Governing law and authorities
• What each remedy requires
• Exceptions and boundaries
• Hypothetical scenarios
• Evidence and documentation
• Step-by-step procedure
• Remedies and realistic outcomes
• Common mistakes
• Takedown evidence pack checklist
• FAQs
• Related guides
• Official sources
• Disclaimer

Immediate First Steps

1. Capture the shop and listings before reporting. Copy the shop URL, seller ID and every offending listing URL, and screenshot each listing with price, description, photos and seller rating. A takedown removes all of it.
2. Archive independently — at least the shop page and top listing to a public web archive, so the timestamps are not solely yours.
3. Identify the venue. A marketplace shop goes to that platform’s IP portal; a standalone website goes to its registrar, host and payment provider, and to DTI.
4. File the platform IP complaint as the rights owner, not as a shopper. Rights-owner complaints sit in a separate queue and carry far more weight than a buyer’s “report this listing”.
5. Give written notice to the marketplace. This engages Section 26(b) of RA 11967 — keep the dated copy and the case reference.

If the fake shop is impersonating your business on a social platform rather than selling on a marketplace, our companion guide on a fake Facebook Page using your business name covers that route instead.

Decision Snapshot

Governing Law and Authorities

RA 11967, the Internet Transactions Act of 2023. It defines an “e-marketplace” as a digital platform “whose business is to connect online consumers with online merchants” (Section 4) and creates an E-Commerce Bureau under the DTI (Section 7) empowered to receive complaints and investigate violations (Section 8). Section 15 lets the DTI Secretary issue an ex parte takedown order — the listed grounds include counterfeit goods and items already under a cease-and-desist order — with a 48-hour opportunity to be heard and a 30-day maximum unless extended by a court. Section 16 establishes a public list of non-compliant websites and applications, and Section 21 imposes merchant-verification and redress duties on e-marketplaces. Section 26(b) matters most to a brand owner: an e-marketplace incurs subsidiary liability where it “[f]ailed, after notice, to act expeditiously in removing or disabling access to goods or services that either infringe on another’s intellectual property rights”, limited to damages from the direct transaction. Section 28 gives an aggrieved party two years to file before a court or the DTI; Section 29 provides fines up to PHP 1,000,000.

RA 8293, the Intellectual Property Code. Section 122 provides that “[t]he rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made validly in accordance with the provisions of this law.” Section 147.1 gives a registered owner “the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs… where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion” (Dermaline, Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., G.R. No. 190065, August 16, 2010). Section 155 defines infringement, Section 165.2 protects trade names without registration, Section 168 covers unfair competition, and Section 170 fixes the criminal penalty. Under Section 10.2, the IPOPHL Bureau of Legal Affairs takes complaints only “where the total damages claimed are not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000)”.

RA 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Section 4(b)(2) penalises computer-related fraud and Section 4(b)(3) computer-related identity theft, covering identifying information “belonging to another, whether natural or juridical”. Section 8 sets the penalty at prisión mayor or a fine of at least PHP 200,000 up to the damage incurred, or both. Marketplace IP portals, by contrast, are product policy and not law; they are cited here for procedure only.

What Each Remedy Requires

Trademark infringement (RA 8293, Section 155)

In Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA, G.R. No. 180073, November 25, 2009, the Supreme Court required a mark registered with the IPO; reproduction, counterfeiting, copying or colourable imitation; application of the infringing mark to goods, services, labels or packaging; likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception; and absence of the owner’s consent. A marketplace listing satisfies the “use in commerce” element easily — the listing is the offer for sale.

Trade name protection (Section 165.2)

Trade names “shall be protected, even prior to or without registration, against any unlawful act committed by third parties”, and any later use “likely to mislead the public” is unlawful. In Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San Francisco Coffee & Roastery, Inc., G.R. No. 169504, March 3, 2010, the Court held that a trade name need not be registered before its owner may sue, provided it was previously used in Philippine commerce.

Unfair competition (Section 168)

Section 168.1 gives a property right in goodwill “whether or not a registered mark is employed”; Section 168.2 reaches anyone employing “deception or any other means contrary to good faith” to pass off goods or a business as another’s (Shang Properties Realty Corporation v. St. Francis Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190706, July 21, 2014). Section 168.3 covers giving goods “the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer” in a way likely to influence purchasers (Republic Gas Corporation v. Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013). This is the workhorse provision for an unregistered brand facing a copycat shop.

Marketplace liability (RA 11967, Section 26(b))

Three things must line up: the platform is an e-marketplace as defined; you gave notice of the infringement; and it failed to act expeditiously to remove or disable access. Liability is subsidiary and limited to the direct transaction’s damages, so its main value is leverage — a dated notice changes how a platform treats a repeat complaint.

Exceptions and Boundaries

Without a registration you cannot sue for infringement. Section 122 is categorical. You can still invoke Section 165.2 and Section 168, and you can still use every platform channel, but you must prove prior use and goodwill instead of producing a certificate. If your brand matters to you, start trademark registration now; it will not fix this incident but it fixes the next one.

Genuine goods resold without your permission are usually not counterfeiting. Unauthorised resale, grey-market imports and parallel distribution raise different questions from fake product, and a counterfeit complaint against a genuine reseller tends to be rejected.

RA 11967’s complaint machinery is built around consumers. Section 24’s requirement to exhaust internal redress within seven days, and Section 28’s two-year window to sue before a court or the DTI, are framed for parties to the transaction. A brand owner who is not the buyer sits less comfortably there; the securely available levers are the Section 26(b) notice and the Section 15 takedown grounds, which reach counterfeit goods regardless of who complains. Treat any wider brand-owner right under the ITA as untested.

The IPOPHL administrative route has a PHP 200,000 damages floor under Section 10.2.

Standalone fake shop sites are harder. There is no IP portal; your levers are the registrar’s abuse process, the host, the payment processor and the DTI. We could not confirm a dedicated IPOPHL website-blocking page at the time of review, so do not assume administrative site blocking is available on request.

Hypothetical Scenarios

These are illustrative hypotheticals, not real cases and not predictions of outcome.

Hypothetical 1: counterfeit listings, registered mark

A Laguna skincare brand with a live Class 3 registration finds eleven listings on a marketplace selling fake versions of its bestseller at a third of the price. It files a rights-owner IP complaint citing the registration and lists all eleven URLs. That written complaint is also the Section 26(b) notice, so if the marketplace leaves the listings up, its exposure changes.

Hypothetical 2: unregistered brand, copycat shop name

A Davao apparel seller trading since 2019 with no trademark finds a shop using its name and product photos. Section 155 is unavailable. The copied photographs are separately protected by copyright, and Sections 165.2 and 168.1 support a passing-off argument built on invoices and five years of sales history.

Hypothetical 3: standalone site taking payments

A fake shop site copies a Manila furniture brand, takes bank transfers and ships nothing. No marketplace exists to complain to. The seller reports abuse to the registrar and host, notifies the receiving bank, reports to DTI as a prohibited online transaction, and helps defrauded buyers file under RA 10175, Section 4(b)(2).

Evidence and Documentation

Distinguish these carefully — a folder of screenshots with nothing else is weak evidence.

• The shop URL and each listing URL, copied not retyped, plus the seller ID or shop username, which persists when a display name changes.
• Screenshots of each listing showing price, title, description, photos, stock and seller rating, with the address bar and clock visible.
• A capture log recording date, time and zone separately from the images.
• An archived capture from a third-party web archive.
• Customer complaints: messages from buyers who thought they were buying from you, plus short written statements.
• Order records: order numbers, receipts, tracking numbers, and the receiving bank or e-wallet account.
• Product comparison: your genuine item beside the received item, packaging and batch codes, if a lawful test purchase was made.
• Proof of rights: the registration certificate, or DTI/SEC papers plus dated invoices and advertising.
• The platform’s case reference, any decision text, and the dated copy of your Section 26(b) notice.

See screenshots as admissible evidence for capture practice that survives challenge.

Step-by-Step Procedure

1. Build the evidence pack below before touching any report button.
2. File the marketplace IP complaint. Shopee, Lazada and TikTok Shop each operate a rights-owner intellectual property protection portal requiring registration as a brand owner and proof of rights. We could not confirm the current portal URLs at the time of review, so reach them from each platform’s own seller or help centre rather than a third-party link, and never through a search advertisement.
3. Send written notice to the marketplace identifying every infringing listing by URL and asserting your rights. Keep the dated copy: this is your Section 26(b) notice.
4. For a standalone site, file abuse reports with the domain registrar and the hosting provider, and notify the payment processor or receiving bank.
5. Record every case reference and diarise a seven-day follow-up.
6. Send a cease-and-desist letter where the seller is identifiable. See our guide to a trademark cease-and-desist letter.
7. Report to IPOPHL’s IP Rights Enforcement Office at operations@ipophl.gov.ph, including the shop URL or name. Where damages claimed reach PHP 200,000, consider a Bureau of Legal Affairs complaint (pleadings received at blareceiving@ipophl.gov.ph).
8. Report to the DTI under the Internet Transactions Act where counterfeit goods or prohibited transactions are involved. We could not confirm a current DTI online complaint URL at the time of review; use the DTI’s own website to reach its consumer complaint channel.
9. Support criminal complaints with the NBI Cybercrime Division or PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group where buyers lost money.

Remedies and Realistic Outcomes

Platform. Listing removal, shop suspension, and in repeat cases seller-account termination — often within days. It is the fastest route by a wide margin, and also discretionary and reversible. Expect relisting under a new shop name, and expect to file again.

Administrative. The DTI may issue a takedown order under RA 11967, Section 15, add non-compliant platforms to the Section 16 public list, and impose fines up to PHP 1,000,000 under Section 29. At IPOPHL, the Bureau of Legal Affairs may issue cease-and-desist orders, order seizure or condemnation, assess damages, and impose fines “which shall in no case be less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) nor more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000)” (RA 8293, Section 10.2). As published on IPOPHL’s website as of September 6, 2026, the IP violation filing fee is PHP 15,000 for a small entity (assets of PHP 100 million or less) and PHP 19,200 for a big entity, inclusive of the 1% Legal Research Fund. IPOPHL describes mediation as “the first viable option in resolving their dispute”; we could not confirm a circular making it mandatory in every case.

Civil. Injunction and damages under RA 8293, plus a possible subsidiary claim against the marketplace under Section 26(b), capped at the direct transaction’s damages. Slow, and dependent on identifying the seller.

Criminal. RA 8293, Section 170 imposes “a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000)” for acts under Sections 155 and 168 (Republic Gas v. Petron, G.R. No. 194062). RA 10175, Section 8 sets prisión mayor or a fine of at least PHP 200,000 for computer-related fraud. Prosecution punishes; it does not refund lost sales.

Stated plainly: takedown is far faster and more achievable than litigation, and neither is guaranteed.

Common Mistakes

• Reporting as a shopper. The buyer-facing “report” button is the wrong queue; register as a rights owner.
• Reporting before capturing. Removal deletes the listing, the seller history and your proof.
• Reporting one listing when the shop has forty. Submit the full URL list in one complaint.
• Confusing counterfeit with unauthorised resale, which weakens your credibility with the platform.
• Skipping the written notice to the marketplace, and losing the Section 26(b) argument.
• Telling customers to mass-report, which produces low-weight user reports, not a rights-owner claim.
• Treating one takedown as the end. Set a standing search for your brand on each marketplace.

Takedown Evidence Pack Checklist

FAQs

Can I report a fake shop without a registered trademark?

Yes. Platform policies on counterfeit and misleading listings do not require a Philippine registration, though registration makes a rights-owner complaint far stronger and is normally required to use a brand-protection portal fully.

Is the marketplace liable for what its sellers do?

Only subsidiarily, and only in defined circumstances. Under RA 11967, Section 26(b), liability arises where the e-marketplace failed, after notice, to act expeditiously to remove infringing goods, and it is limited to damages from the direct transaction.

Should I make a test purchase?

It can be the cleanest proof that goods are counterfeit, but plan it: keep the order record, photograph the unopened parcel, and do not send money to an unverified account outside the platform.

The shop is gone but reappeared under a new name. Now what?

Reuse the pack, cite the earlier case reference, and flag the pattern. Repeat infringement is treated more seriously than an isolated listing, and it strengthens a later Section 26(b) argument.

What if it is a website, not a marketplace?

There is no IP portal. Work the registrar’s abuse process, the host, and the payment processor, and report to DTI. This route is slower and less certain.

Do I need a lawyer?

Not for platform complaints. Take advice before a demand letter, an IPOPHL or DTI filing, or court action.

Related Cybercode Guides

• Fake Facebook Page using my business name
• Trademark infringement on Shopee and Lazada
• Reporting counterfeit products online
• Someone is using my business name online
• Trademark infringement in the Philippines
• Trademark cease-and-desist letter
• Trademark registration in the Philippines
• Fake accounts and impersonation
• Screenshots as admissible evidence

Official Sources

• Republic Act No. 11967 — Internet Transactions Act of 2023
• Republic Act No. 8293 — Intellectual Property Code
• Republic Act No. 10175 — Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
• Prosource International v. Horphag Research, G.R. No. 180073 (2009)
• Coffee Partners v. San Francisco Coffee & Roastery, G.R. No. 169504 (2010)
• Republic Gas v. Petron, G.R. No. 194062 (2013)
• IPOPHL — IP Rights Enforcement Office
• IPOPHL — Filing requirements and fees
• Department of Trade and Industry
• National Bureau of Investigation — Contact
• PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group

Disclaimer

Important: This article provides general educational information about Philippine law, regulation, cybersecurity, technology, or business compliance. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, agency procedures, technical standards, platform rules, and the facts of each situation may change the result. Verify current requirements through the cited official sources and seek qualified professional advice when your rights, deadlines, money, safety, or legal exposure may be affected.