Digital marketing

Somebody is using your name: what to do, in order

A page, a shop or a product carries your mark. What follows depends entirely on the first three decisions.

Published on 15 July 2026 — Algeria Agency

One day somebody sends you a screenshot: a page, a shop, a product carrying your name, your logo, or something close enough to mislead your customers. The immediate reaction is nearly always wrong, and it is nearly always public.

What happens in the next twenty-four hours decides the rest. Too quick a response deprives you of the evidence; a public response gives the other party an audience they did not have; a legal threat you cannot support weakens you for every exchange that follows.

This article covers what comes next, in order: what you actually hold, the four situations that are not handled the same way, the evidence to build before writing, the message that settles most cases, reporting to platforms, and the point at which a lawyer becomes necessary. The companion article covers acquiring the right — the filing, the classes, the territory, the prior search — and none of that is repeated here.

It carries no chart, and the reason is instructive: published figures on these disputes do exist, and they count only the ones that escalated.

Publish nothing for twenty-four hours

The first decision is not to take it in public. The temptation to post the screenshot with an indignant comment is strong, everybody understands it, and it is the move that closes the most doors.

It closes three. It warns the person, who can delete the evidence and start again under another name before you have built anything. It gives an account nobody knew about the audience of yours. And it commits you in front of your customers to a position you do not yet know is legally tenable.

That last point is the most expensive and the least anticipated. If you publicly announce that a business is “stealing” your mark and it then emerges that your rights are weaker than you thought, or that the other party filed before you, the post becomes evidence against you rather than against them.

What to do during those twenty-four hours is modest and sufficient: observe, record, and check what you hold. None of those three warns the other party, and all three are irreversibly easier now than after a message.

What you actually hold, and why there is no figure here

Before writing to anybody, one precise question has to be answered: what exactly do you have a right over, on which territory, and for which goods or services. The answer is rarely what people assume, and it completely changes the tone of the message to send.

Three cases come up regularly. You have a filing in force covering the class concerned, and your position is solid. You have a filing that does not cover this activity, and your position is real but partial. Or you have only use — a sign, invoices, demonstrable priority — which is not nothing and is not a title.

That check takes an hour and is done alone, by rereading your certificate if one exists: the date, the classes, the territory. Doing it after sending a message means discovering how solid your position is after announcing that it was solid, which is the reverse of the necessary order.

On how often these situations arise we publish no figure, and the explanation is worth giving. Data exists on oppositions and actions brought; it counts the disputes that reached a register. But the great majority of these matters end with a private message and a closed account, without anything being filed anywhere. A rate read from those sources therefore describes the cases that escalated, and would be quoted as though it described the whole.

Four situations, four responses

What gets called “somebody is using my name” covers four very different things, and treating them identically is the most frequent error. The first is the good-faith namesake: a business in another sector, sometimes another wilaya, that chose the same word without knowing you.

The second is the imitator: somebody who saw that it worked for you and deliberately moved closer, with a neighbouring name, neighbouring colours, sometimes your own photographs. The third is counterfeiting: your mark applied to goods that are not yours, which exposes you to customers who will believe they bought from you.

The fourth is the most painful and the most common in small businesses: the former partner, former distributor or former employee who carried on with the name. It is painful because it is mixed with personal history and because there are often old, ambiguous documents on both sides.

The order of seriousness is not the order of handling. The good-faith namesake is often settled by a conversation and a delimitation of use; counterfeiting calls for fast action because the risk sits with your customers; the former partner requires starting by rereading what was signed, before any message. Deciding which of the four you are facing is the second decision in the file.

Evidence is built before the message

Everything you have seen can disappear in a minute, and probably will as soon as the person knows you have seen it. Evidence is therefore built before any contact, without exception, including when the situation looks obvious.

The minimum is three things. Screenshots showing the full page address and the date visible on screen, not just the content. The links themselves, noted in a file with the time they were taken. And, where goods are involved, an order actually placed, with its invoice and packaging kept.

That last one is what gets skipped and is often the most useful: a product bought from the person, with the sales document, establishes at once the existence of the product, its price, and the identity of whoever is selling it. A screenshot establishes only a page.

For serious situations — counterfeiting, a former partner, quantifiable loss — there is a level above: having a bailiff draw up a formal record. It costs, and it changes the nature of the file, because a bailiff’s record is not contested the way a screenshot is. It also has to be decided early, since a record cannot cover a page that has already been deleted.

The message that settles most cases

The majority of these situations end with a polite, precise message sent privately, not with proceedings. That is true in particular for the good-faith namesake and for a good share of imitators, who stop when they understand that somebody is watching and that the person opposite knows what they are talking about.

That message contains four things and nothing else. Who you are and what you hold, with the date and number if one exists. What you have observed, factually, with the link. What you are asking for, precisely — take down, rename, cease a particular use. And a reasonable deadline, in days.

What it does not contain matters just as much. No threat you are not prepared to carry out, no legal characterisation you are unsure of, no indignant tone. A calm, documented message achieves more than an aggressive one, for a simple reason: it gives the person a way to stop without losing face, and that is what you want them to do.

Send by a channel that leaves a trace and allows receipt to be proved. A private message on a social network is fine to open with, and is not enough if the matter continues; at that point recorded delivery to the company’s address becomes necessary, and that is the limit at which improvising stops.

Reporting to the platform

When the problem lives on a social network or a marketplace, there is a parallel route that goes through nobody: the trade mark infringement report forms, provided by the platforms themselves and handled by them.

That route has two qualities. It is free and fast — a few days in clear cases — and it requires no lawyer. It has one decisive limit: it nearly always asks for a filing number. Without a registered title, an infringement report has little chance of succeeding, and that is the moment many businesses discover what a filing is for.

There is a distinction the forms make and people do not: use of your name and use of your images are not the same report. Your copied product photographs fall under copyright, and that report requires no registered trade mark — so it is often the only one immediately available, and it is under-used.

Reporting does not replace the message from the previous section, it is added to it, and the order has a practical consequence. Reporting first often makes the page disappear, which fixes the symptom and deprives you of the counterpart: the person starts again elsewhere, and you have neither contact nor fresh evidence.

The domain name already taken

One particular case comes up often: somebody has registered the domain name matching your mark, sometimes before you, sometimes to sell it back to you. The first thing to establish is which of the two you have.

A domain registered and used by a real business, even a namesake, is not an infringement in itself — first come, first served governs registrations, and that is deliberate. A domain registered without use and offered for sale to your business is a different situation, with its own routes of recourse.

The reaction to avoid is contacting the holder from an address that identifies you, showing interest. The price asked is not fixed: it is a function of what the holder believes you are prepared to pay, and a request visibly coming from the mark’s owner moves that price immediately.

You also have to accept that a domain is not always the fight worth having. A different extension, a slightly modified name, or a redirect from another domain you control solve the commercial problem for a fraction of the cost and time. The exact domain has value; it is rarely the value attributed to it in the emotion of the moment.

The former partner, the former distributor

This is the most frequent situation in small businesses and the only one where the usual order reverses: here you do not begin with evidence of the other side’s use, you begin by rereading what was signed.

The documents to find are few and decisive: the articles of association, any distribution or partnership agreement, and above all the name in which the filing was made if one exists. It regularly turns out that the mark was filed by a natural person — a partner — rather than by the company, and that discovery changes the whole file.

The second check concerns what has been tolerated. A known use left unchallenged for years weakens a position, because it is hard to argue that harm is serious after letting it run without saying anything. That is not fatal; it is an element the other side will raise and which is better anticipated.

It is the case where the lawyer arrives earliest in the chain, and that is justified: there is a contractual history, ambiguous documents, and often a relationship that makes judgement difficult. It is also the case where a negotiated settlement — a delimitation of use, a territory, a phased wind-down — is most often the best outcome available.

When a lawyer is worth the cost

The honest question is not whether you are right, but whether action is worth what it costs. Proceedings take time, occupy the owner, and their cost is certain where their result is not. That does not mean giving up; it means deciding with the right elements.

Three situations justify a lawyer without hesitation. Counterfeit goods, because your customers are exposed and your own liability may be pursued. A dispute with a former partner or distributor, for the reasons in the previous section. And the case where the other side has filed the mark and is asserting their title against you, because you are then no longer in a negotiation but in a procedure.

Conversely, two situations are often not worth it. A distant namesake, in another sector, creating no real confusion among your customers. And a small account that copied your photographs and that a platform report makes disappear within a week for nothing.

The useful benchmark is not legal: it is whether you are losing customers. An infringement that loses you none is an irritating infringement, and irritation is a poor adviser on spending. An infringement that produces calls from confused customers, returns of goods you did not sell, or negative reviews that are not about you can be quantified — and from there the decision becomes calculable.

What publicity costs you

Making the matter public looks like a weapon and rarely is one. The reasoning — “our customers need to know” — is sincere and underestimates two effects that both work against you.

The first is audience. An indignant post tells your customers about a competitor they did not know existed, by name, sometimes with a link. You are funding their reputation with yours, and the effect does not undo.

The second is perception, and it is more insidious. A business talking publicly about a dispute appears, to a customer who has not followed it, as a business in conflict. The detail of who is right does not carry; the impression of a problem carries perfectly.

There is a clear exception and it has to be named: when customers are genuinely being misled — fake goods are circulating, somebody is taking payment in your place — you must warn them, and quickly. But then the message is about what your customers should check, not about who is at fault: “our products are only sold on this site and in this shop” protects your customers without advertising anybody.

One hour a quarter

Nearly all of these situations are discovered late, and by accident: a customer asks whether a shop is yours. The delay costs, because an old infringement is harder to stop and because the freshest evidence has gone.

The monitoring that suffices is dull and free. Once a quarter, search your own name on the engines, on the two networks where your customers are, and on the marketplaces where your category sells. Search the variants too: the name without a space, with a letter missing, transcribed into the other alphabet.

That last instruction is the highest-return one in this market. A mark written in Latin characters and in Arabic characters exists in two forms search engines do not connect, and searching only one leaves half the ground uncovered — it is frequently under the other form that imitation appears.

Note what you find, even when you decide to do nothing. A page spotted today and left alone, found again in a year, becomes documented priority: you will know how long it has existed, which is exactly the information always missing at the moment of deciding whether to act.

What we do, and where our role stops

What we take on is bounded and is not legal: capturing and archiving evidence in a usable form, platform reports, the quarterly monitoring, and drafting what you will say to your customers if the matter reaches them.

We do not draft a formal notice and will not send one in your name. This is not excessive caution: a formal notice is an act that binds you, whose terms can be held against you, and it calls for a legal professional. We will tell you when we think that moment has come, and we will stop there.

We do not run a public campaign against a copyist, even when a client asks for one, and section nine of this page explains why: you would fund that person’s reputation with your own, and your customers would retain that there is a problem without retaining the cause. What we will draft is the warning that protects your customers — where to buy, how to check — naming nobody.

Finally, we will not tell you your position is solid without having read your certificate. The question “what do you hold, on which territory, for which classes” has a written answer somewhere, and experience of this subject is that it often differs from what the owner believes. We would rather tell you before you have sent a message.

Frequently asked questions

Should we post the screenshot to warn our customers?

Not in the first twenty-four hours, and rarely afterwards. Posting warns the person, who deletes the evidence and starts again elsewhere; it gives an unknown account the audience of yours; and it commits you publicly to a position you do not yet know is tenable. The exception is real: when customers are being misled, warn them — but about what they should check, not about who is at fault.

What should we do first, concretely?

Three things that warn nobody: observe, record, check. Screenshots with the full address and date visible, links noted with the time taken, and — if goods are involved — an order actually placed, invoice and packaging kept. Then reread your certificate: date, classes, territory. How solid your position is gets discovered before the message, not after.

Do platform reports work?

Yes, free and fast in clear cases, but they nearly always ask for a filing number — that is where many businesses discover what a filing is for. Note an under-used distinction: your copied photographs fall under copyright, and that report requires no registered mark. Do not report before writing: the page disappears, the person starts again elsewhere, and you lose both the counterpart and the fresh evidence.

Somebody has taken our domain name. What now?

First distinguish: a domain genuinely used by a business, even a namesake, is not an infringement in itself — first come, first served governs registrations. An unused domain offered for sale is another matter. Do not contact them from an address that identifies you: the price asked is a function of what they think you will pay. And check the fight is worth it — another extension or a redirect often solves the commercial problem.

Our former partner is continuing with the name. How to approach it?

The order reverses: start by rereading what was signed, not by evidencing the use. Find the articles of association, any distribution agreement, and above all in whose name the mark was filed — it is often a natural person rather than the company, which changes the whole file. Check too what has been tolerated: a known use left unchallenged for years weakens a position, and the other side will raise it.

When is a lawyer justified?

Without hesitation in three cases: counterfeit goods, a dispute with a former partner or distributor, and where the other side has filed the mark and is asserting it against you. The useful benchmark is commercial rather than legal: are you losing customers? An infringement producing calls from confused customers, returns of goods you did not sell, or reviews that are not about you can be quantified, and the decision becomes calculable. Merely irritating is a poor reason to spend.

Where we come in

The first three decisions get made inside a week, and the expensive one is writing to the copier before anything at all has been dated.

We timestamp what is online, screen by screen, before any contact is made.
We lodge the reports with each platform, from your own accounts.
We build the chronology of both uses, yours and theirs.
We tell you which route is still open, and its cost in weeks.

While you do not know what your title covers — territory, classes, date — spend nothing: there may be nothing there to defend.

See the Algerian Brand Protection page Write to us

Let us talk about your project

A free audit, no commitment: we look at your online presence and tell you what is holding it back.

Request the free audit Write to us