Supply Chain Case

📄 Case Entry: Supply Chain Documentation Accepted for Enforcement Removal, Rejected for Brand Approval

Summary:
Amazon has repeatedly accepted sales orders, receipts, and similar sourcing documentation to remove IP, counterfeit, and trademark complaints. However, the same documentation is now being rejected when submitted for brand approval, without any substantive rationale or policy update. This creates a clear conflict of standards across internal enforcement teams.

🧾 Key Facts

Sales documentation accepted to reverse IP complaints for brands including Shine Armor, ZAP IT!, BioSteel, Better Bedder, and Sharper Image
Amazon confirmed authenticity of supply chain and sourcing during enforcement appeals
Same documentation denied during ungating attempts — flagged as “insufficient” or “unverifiable” without clarification
No disclosed policy update or internal guidance change explains the discrepancy

⚖️ Legal Position for Arbitration

Under Amazon’s Business Solutions Agreement, policies must be applied fairly and in good faith. Using documentation to remove violations while rejecting it for brand approval — within the same account and time period — reflects inconsistent enforcement and undermines commercial reliability.

This inconsistency materially disrupts lawful commerce and may support a claim of tortious interference with business expectancy. Arbitration relief will seek a consistent standard for documentation across enforcement and approval processes.

🔗 Dove Brand Evidence

Dove listed in 2021 — **Figure 1:** Dove listings active in 2021, later restricted under brand gating protocols.

Dove ungated then regated — **Figure 2:** Dove approved in Feb 2025 (Case ID 17008226461); later re-gated with no explanation.

Figure 3: Documentation packages accepted for IP removals — showing product sourcing and receipt validation.

**Figure 4:** Amazon Retail 50-unit Dove order denied despite documentation originating from Amazon itself.

Figure 5: Escalation submitted, acknowledgment received, but no further reply.

Figure 6: No response after resending escalation with complete documentation.

Conclusion:
This pattern reflects a breakdown in internal consistency and procedural transparency. All documentation will be included in arbitration filings. Relief will seek a unified documentation standard and policy-level review of contradictory internal practices.

🔗 Related Brand Evidence (Coming Soon)

🗂️ PDF Sales Orders – Dungeons & Dragons, Herbal Essences, Aussie, Gleem
📧 Email Confirmations – Past IP removals citing documentation sufficiency
📸 Screenshots – Ungating denials citing “retail receipt” or “unverifiable source”

Amazon Mishandling – Dove Brand Approval Escalation (Case ID: 17715923121)

📌 Summary

I submitted a valid sales order from XYZ to support brand approval for Dove. Despite prior acceptance of this format for enforcement removals, Amazon denied the same documentation for ungating — citing that “retail receipts are not accepted.” This rejection contradicts previous internal decisions and written acknowledgments.

📭 Amazon Response Breakdown

June 5, 2025 – “Expert review in 24 hours”
Amazon confirmed receipt and provided Case ID 17862127391.
Status: The link returns an error: “This is not a valid case for SHISS.” No response was sent. No record of review exists.

Later that day – Referral Email
Amazon redirected the escalation to csm-brand-review@amazon.com — a standard approval channel.
Note: This was not a new application. The message was a systemic policy contradiction appeal.

📂 Supporting Evidence

📄 Email 1 – Acknowledgment of expert review (Case ID: 17862127391)

📄 Email 2 – Deflection to csm-brand-review@amazon.com

🖼️ Invalid Case ID Screenshot

💬 Commentary

When documentation is validated for enforcement but rejected for ungating, it exposes a structural inconsistency in Amazon’s internal processes. No seller should be subjected to two conflicting standards based on workflow channel alone.

This will be addressed through arbitration as part of a broader request for policy transparency and enforcement parity.