📢 Important Guidelines: Submitting Letters of Authorization (LOA) for Trademark Usage
Hello Sellers!
We want to help you understand the requirements for submitting proper documentation when using trademarked content in your listings. Here's what you need to know:
What You Need & Why
If you're using another company's trademark in your listings (including product images, packaging, or detail pages), you'll need to provide either:
- Proof of trademark ownership OR
- A valid Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the trademark owner
Essential Components of a Valid LOA
Your documentation must include these 5 key terms:
1. Licensor (company granting the rights)
2. Licensee (company receiving the rights)
3. Grant (specific IP being licensed and scope)
4. Geographic scope (authorized territories)
5. Term (duration of authorization)
Acceptable Documentation Formats
✅ PDF documents
✅ Scanned PDF images
✅ Word documents (only for self-declarations by IP owners)
✅ Email screenshots (must be from trademark owner's company domain)
Required Elements
- Company letterhead of the trademark owner
- Complete agreement terms
- Authorized signature/stamp
- If emailed: Must come from trademark owner's official domain
Additional Note: If you don't have trademark registration in your selling region, include a declaration of IP ownership with your company stamp or authorized signature.
💡 Pro Tip: Review all documentation carefully before submission to ensure it meets these requirements. This will help avoid delays in the approval process.
Have questions? Drop them below! We're here to help.
📢 Important Guidelines: Submitting Letters of Authorization (LOA) for Trademark Usage
Hello Sellers!
We want to help you understand the requirements for submitting proper documentation when using trademarked content in your listings. Here's what you need to know:
What You Need & Why
If you're using another company's trademark in your listings (including product images, packaging, or detail pages), you'll need to provide either:
- Proof of trademark ownership OR
- A valid Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the trademark owner
Essential Components of a Valid LOA
Your documentation must include these 5 key terms:
1. Licensor (company granting the rights)
2. Licensee (company receiving the rights)
3. Grant (specific IP being licensed and scope)
4. Geographic scope (authorized territories)
5. Term (duration of authorization)
Acceptable Documentation Formats
✅ PDF documents
✅ Scanned PDF images
✅ Word documents (only for self-declarations by IP owners)
✅ Email screenshots (must be from trademark owner's company domain)
Required Elements
- Company letterhead of the trademark owner
- Complete agreement terms
- Authorized signature/stamp
- If emailed: Must come from trademark owner's official domain
Additional Note: If you don't have trademark registration in your selling region, include a declaration of IP ownership with your company stamp or authorized signature.
💡 Pro Tip: Review all documentation carefully before submission to ensure it meets these requirements. This will help avoid delays in the approval process.
Have questions? Drop them below! We're here to help.
28 replies
Seller_PqRORvCSLAuUn
The issue some LOAs is brands don't want their products on Amazon because people can leave reviews. I work with many suppliers and although some say they don't want their products on Amazon and Ebay to "protect their brand" the real reason is some people who buy on Amazon don't know what they're buying or have a bad experience with the seller and leave negative feedback for the product. This means they can't say they have 5 star reviews.
To appeal feedback for products on Amazon and Ebay it's usually automated or they are put through to a call centre in the Philippians where they pretend to not understand their accent of the company's rep.
Another problem on Amazon with claims of trade name misuse is that if you use the brand name of the product you are selling it can be flagged as misuse. A problem for this is in America many people refer to products by another brand name such as Velcro or Kleenex when really they mean hook and loop or tissues even though they aren't made by those brands. It doesn't happen as much in the UK but it's one of those Americanisms which the Amazon rules are based on.
Seller_4mvpF14wacAyg
Hello @Julia_Amzn
This whole process is a complete joke if I'm totally honest.
Sellers have to jump through so many hoops to get authorisation to list a brand and usually within days you remove our access. With some brands seller support say you have 96 hours to list etc, but with most they just accept and don't give you any timescale, you'll just log in one day and not have access to the brand. I have literally been approved for a certain brand over 50 times in the course of 2 years, because you just remove my access every 2 weeks.
The main issue I have is that your AI tools that look after the catalogue just constantly break parent/child variants, so I need access to the brands to just fix things you break, not to list new products.
I don't understand why once we have provided a valid LOA and been accepted to sell the brand you just remove it within days. It just seems you are pushing everyone to be invited by the brand to be an authorised seller, but as other people have pointed out, most of our suppliers cannot provide this as they are not the brand owner, they are a manufacture with a certain product license.
It's stressful logging in and some of my top selling parent/child sku lines are just scattered into single size/colours and I have to go through the process of proving I'm a valid seller AGAIN and AGAIN with the EXACT same information I have provided for years from the same supplier, who have the exact same license agreement and LOA.
If you want proof of how ridiculous it is please look at the below case logs where I have been approved for the same brand over and over again, I have many more case logs if you want them...
11019753632 - 15th April
10999561872 - 14th April
10979020982 - 8th April
10958115932 - 1st April
10930433132 - 20th March
10915301692 - 17th March
The whole process is not fit for purpose at the moment, sorry for the rant, but it is my main concern as a seller.
Seller_KyAP1cutff5TF
I've provided this so many times for one brand. Ive been going back and forth with seller support for 5 days and im getting no where.
I have two ASINS using the same trademark owners brand on both ASINS. Seller support have reinstated one listing, but they wont reinstate the other. The listings are both the same brand, its so frustrating!
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
The problem with this and always has been is that Amazon do not know which brands are which and who owns them. For example, you could have products with brand Spiderman, Avengers or Hulk and the brand owner is Marvel, however if the listing has been created with the brand Spiderman, Amazon WILL ONLY accept a LOA from Spiderman, they will not accept a Marvel authorisation and this is impossible to get.
The other important issue is that brands are owned by brand owners and they give permission to manufacturers and distributors by licence to make and distribute their products, so therein lies another issue, if you purchase a Disney product, say Frozen and the manufacturer has been given the manufacturing license and then the manufacturer gives the distribution license to a distributor, both the manufacturer and the distributor have the right to make and distribute and fully licensed by the brand owner who has authorised them.
Amazon however WILL ONLY accept a letter from the Disney Corporation and they are not in the habit of issuing LOA's to Amazon sellers when they have set up a full manufacturing and distribution network for their products.
The same issue arises if you want to change the brand of the item, so say Marvel and then list the item as Spiderman, this will also not be possible as the brand is now Marvel and the Marvel corporation will not issue LOA's to Amazon seller and Amazon will say that the item does not match the brand and block it.
So, if Amazon refuse to accept the legitimate LOA's from the license holders, then nothing will happen, no listing.
I have lost about 500 listings that were removed for brand issues and when I had an account Manager he took the 20 pages that I had written to the branding team and there was never any response as neither of us could figure out how to get the LOA when the brand owner licenses the manufacturer and distributor.
Until the branding team actually understand how branding and issuing of LOA's work, millions of listings will be lost and sellers will never be able to create listings for their branded items.
I have been dealing with this issue for more than 5 years and despite involving the manufactures and distributors that have the licenses nothing is ever done, the distributors just say that Amazon are too difficult to deal with and give up.
I even asked them to contact the brand owner, for example Marvel or Disney and ask them to let the manufacturer or distributor issue the LOA's and that didn't work as the LOA was not from the office of the brand owner and so we go round and round and nothing happens.
Having read this advice it would be virtually if not actually impossible to get all this information, so nobody will be able to sell a branded product in a lot of categories.
Unless you are specifically involved or friendly with an actual brand owner who is prepared to give you a LOA for their actual brand, then you will not succeed.
There are millions of products that could be listed by sellers on Amazon, but there is no route to successfully achieve this and that is a fact that I have proved.
Brand owners are losing millions that they could easily have if Amazon allowed their products to be listed, however it is quite easy to understand why a brand owner who may have 100 brands that are licensed out would not give one seller a LOA to sell the brand, but on the other hand they want their items sold on Amazon but have no route to actually achieve this due to the Amazon view of branding and how it works.
Anyone know anything different?
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
Having read a few of the other replies that state exactly the same thing, perhaps it is time for Amazon to stop listening to the people who think they know and get an independent person in to analyse the LOA system and maybe it will increase Amazon's turnover by a few hundred million if they actually allow sellers to sell approved branded products and not ask for what is impossible.
I am passionate about this issue as I know for a fact that Amazon is wrong.
Seller_zOYeT4NVTdUGV
@Julia_Amzn
This is all well and good but, we sell chocolates in personalised bouquet boxes. Our business is the creation of personalised gifts and customers choose what chocolates to add in their personalised box.
Under UK LAW, we do NOT require to be an authorised seller of any brand of chocolate. Brands make their products available to purchase through a network of wholesalers. We must register and prove we are a business with the wholesaler but once done, we do NOT need any further or specific authorisation from the brand owners themselves as by 'implication' they have granted permission for re-sale by any business registered with their authorised wholesalers. It is how they sell, they do not have individual stores themselves, they rely upon re-sellers!
What Amazon is doing here is 'assuming' we need to be authorised when we do not, when we therefor can not show we are authorised (as it does not exist and is not required by the brands in question) listings are deleted. Does every shop on all the UK High Streets have an authorisation for each brand of chocolate they sell? I think not! Is it required? I KNOW it is NOT!
We have gone through the last 12 months being told we must have titles such as "Personalised Chocolate Bouquet COMPATIBLE with Snickers" for example (like you plug a Snickers bar in somewhere !) and after all that across hundreds of listings, we now get told images are now also affected and it all starts again. Can Amazon please tell me how I show a customer clear images of what they are buying (as required in UK LAW and Amazon image policies) yet I can not show the Snickers bar ?!? The solution seems to be they remove the listing so you can't !
I believe government regulators will have a field day with this policy down the line, it arbitrarily leaves Amazon to decide a product is 'suspected' of Trade Mark infringement and remove listings (prosecution without trial!) when the actual Brand owners are not making any such accusations even though they have the ability to flag listings themselves if they are concerned.
I totally get a case for example of somebody selling a cheap watch and claiming it is a Rolex but stopping genuine sellers, selling genuine legitimate brands, that do not require any special authorisation to so is unconstitutional in a free economy.
Traders/Sellers are being assumed guilty of Trade Mark infringement without due cause and expected to produce a LOA that is not required and so does not exists. Can you imagine, in our case for example, is Mars Wrigley really going to write a LOA for every seller for every sub brand they sell (Snickers, Mars, Galaxy etc) across the entire UK? They simply do not have the man power to do this. I do have a theory why this is happening, ever heard of Amazon Fresh? Would the implementation of this policy be more or less beneficial to Amazon Fresh for example? Morisons on Amazon? Co-Op on Amazon?
We all love Amazon, that's why we are on here. If Amazon is a friend then, as a good friend, I would 'gently advise' Amazon, this may end up with you in a heap of trouble and be very costly in the long run, Brand owners need us, your 'arbitrary' policy is getting in the way of that, they may not in the long run be happy and thank you for it.
(Disclaimer : All Trademarks brand names and/or product names used are purely for descriptive purposes only, other brands are available!)
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
Thank you for explaining your case, you can see that no matter what the product category is, Amazon has got it wrong and do not understand the intricacies of brand ownership versus license permissions and who is an authorised brand user with permission from the brand owner.
Having spoken to brand owners, one of the them was the Vice President of online operations for a large character produtc range and he told me that they had tried with Amazon, but they were not responsible for creating listings and they could not issue LOA's to individual sellers when the licenses for the products made were held by the manufacturer of the product and the distributor.
About 10% of their product catalogue was in the Amazon catalogue and 90% could not be listed as no seller could get a LOA to sell the brand, the manufacturer wanted to sell the products through the distributor and the distributor wanted to supply the Amazon sellers, but none of them were able to create the necessary listings as nobody could secure the LOA from the brand owner.
If you add this major issue to the many other issues that exist on Amazon, it probably represents a loss of revenue somewhere around £200 million a year for Amazon as they simply refuse to see the actual case in most instances and seem to always run with what they think is right and nobody can tell them otherwise.
Even though Jeff Bezos is now not directly involved with Amazon, isn't amazing that he can send a rocket into space and yet cannot get a decent seller support, cannot get a correct catalogue, where 30% has errors and his brand and catalogue team dismiss about 50% or more of the possible listings on Amazon by refusing to accept legitimate LOA's from licence holders.
Seller_zOYeT4NVTdUGV
you are right of course. The issue runs very deep. It’s more a battle of legalities.
If Brand owner (A) licenses Distributor (B) to sell within a zone (Z) then The brand owner (A) could be sued by distributor (B) for giving LOAs to individual selling online as online could also cover the distributors licensed zone (Z)
It is for that very simple explanation alone why this system will never work, is totally unfair practice and is encouraging or even putting brand owners at risk of legal repercussion's if they did.
It is also against Free Trade, a capitalist free market economy and I am sure “infringes” upon the rights of lawful legitimate business’s to sell on a supposed open UK market online platform that, we are “charged a fee” to sell on which in an in its own right could be tantamount to being charged for a service you are then denied.
Not to mention thousands upon thousands of £s sellers have spent on “Amazon” advertising to advance their business on “Amazon” to have that unilaterally wiped away by the very same company unilaterally making the decision to remove the listings. Yes the advertising arm will be sine “company, sub company, sister company, associated firm, group, head corporation or other” but still very much associated to and influenced by Amazon.
I am not worried though, I take daily screen shots and save all correspondence as I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, this policy will change, be it voluntary or by government body regulation, damage to business will have been done and reparations will need to be made.
As for Bezos and his rockets, fair play to be honest, but at the end of the day he is just in a race with Musk to go to a Barron planet like Mars, they could save a fortune and at this rate, just visit the Amazon online catalogue in 2026, it will be much the same landscape I’m sure!
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
The other interesting point here is that of course that Amazon themselves need no LOA to sell any product that they want to sell, so is this a plan between the Amazon buying team and the brand team to ensure that third party sellers never get to list items that Amazon have a free run on and make the process impossible?
Seller_zOYeT4NVTdUGV
If they did that, it would be illegal and prejudicial to all who sell on Amazon. Amazon can not simply say we can do as we like, they still have to operate in a fair and open manner, there have already been EU Laws to 'curb' any engagement in this type of market manipulation.
There is Amazon the retailer and Amazon the market place platform. Amazon the market place Platform is creating rules for people to follow, Amazon the retailer must follow the same rules with out fear or favour just like anybody else.
The LAW is very simple and not as complex as people think, it is solicitors and lawyers that make up technical sounding phrases that make the LAW 'APPEAR' complex. In any court, you have the right to ask for a phrase be said in 'simple English/ layman's terms' as the LAW can not enforce something an individual does not understand.
To that end, in you case for Example 'Marvel. in my case 'Mars Wrigley' and sub-brands in your case "Spider Man' and varying written iterations thereof and my case 'Snickers' ask the following applying your Brand in question.
a) Does Amazon retail have an LOA to sell the head brand or sub brand on Amazon platform, if NO then Amazon platform should remove all listings in accordance to Amazon platform Policy and UK law to avoid prejudice, discrimination against other sellers it is arbitrarily removing.
b) Does Amazon retailer have an LOA to sell the head brand or sub brand on Amazon platform, if YES then it is 'implied' in LAW that Amazon platform is authorised to sell it but importantly, by implication, that means products from those brands ARE permitted to be sold on the Amazon platform full stop. It does not give Amazon platform the arbitrary right to then decide WHO sells that brand on Amazon platform, that is a decision for the Brand Owners ONLY but it does mean that Amazon platform can not claim it is Trade Mark infringement to sell those brands on the platform as Amazon retail has been authorised to sell those brands on that very Amazon platform. (Amazon platform can of course decide who sells on the Amazon platform, but that is a different phrasing)
Similarly, Yourself, myself and 99% of other sellers on Amazon platform buy our 'BRANDED' products through 'Authorised Agents/Networks' Again, the Brand Owners have 'AUTHORISED' those agents to make their goods available for re-sale. You MUST register with Cash&Carrys, Suppliers, Wholesalers, Agents and like in order to open an account (I do not refer to a credit account, simply a purchasing ability account) which 'THEY' have an obligation make sure you fit the criteria to be able to purchase and re-sell from them. For example;
a) I am a chocolate business, I can register at food wholesalers to purchase and re-sell and have demonstrated ID, Business Records, Address, contact details etc to do so. There for I can purchase and re-sell chocolate of ANY BRAND they stock.
b) I am not registered for tobacco or medicines (which does require additional registration processes). I could not and would not be granted an account at a pharmaceutical warehouse, Tobacco warehouse as I would not meet the required criteria to be eligible to hold an account with them for the purpose of purchasing those goods.
Therefore, if you are registered with an authorised re-seller of ANY product, Brand or otherwise then by 'IMPLIED LAW' you are already authorised by the higher up BRAND OWNER to re-sell their products and require no further evidence to prove that which is already proven in 'IMPLIED LAW' Aside from that, if Amazon retail have been granted an LOA to sell the Brand on the Amazon platform then by implication it proves the Brand Owners have no objection to their brands being sold on the Amazon Platform FULL STOP. For that to happen, a Brand Owner would have to grant EXLCUSIVE selling rights to Amazon Retail which in turn WOULD mean other no other seller could sell their Brand.
Lets be honest, if Amazon Retail has been granted LOA's by ANY BRAND then it again implies they been granted that to sell on the Amazon Platform and where else does Amazon Retail sell? Argos? Very Catalogue?
Again, screenshot, save, be patient, It is going to be a rough ride however, I am confident a wrong has been done and where there is a wrong, there is a financial 'correcting' to be done.
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
I totally agree that Amazon have to police the use of brands on the platform and they need to be sure that a seller has that authorisation and that they are selling the genuine branded products.
That is where the problem lies as has been outlined now here in detail. Amazon need to know what is the definition of a brand authorisation, who has the authority to issue an LOA and can an LOA issued by a licensed manufacturer or distributor be a valid LOA for a brand?
In my opinion if a large brand owner such as Marvel, Disney, Mondelez or any of them trust a manufacturer or distributor with a full and complete licence to manufacturer and distribute their branded products then they also have the ability and permissions to issue an LOA to a seller of their products.
In speaking to one of the large brand owners, they said that were able to specifically state that their licensed companies could issue LOA's to sellers providing that the products bought from them were listed in accordance with any terms and conditions pertaining to the brand, but Amazon will not accept them.
Many large brand owners can have over 100 brands in their portfolio, all of which are individual brands in their own right, but the only entity that can issue the LOA is the brand owner, not the 'name' of the brand.
So the example here would be a listing for a Cadbury item, the brand is Cadbury and the listing is Cadbury, however the problem is that the brand owner is Mondelez, so Amazon want an LOA from Cadbury, which cannot happen as this is a brand and not a company and an LOA from Mondelez, if it could be obtained, would be refused by Amazon as it does not match the brand in the listing, so Catch 22.
Another important point here is that every large corporation and brand owner has an intellectual property company working for them to search out any unauthorised item or indeed counterfeit items, so if a seller has been approved by a brand and they list an item that is either not recognised or suspected as non genuine, that company will act by issuing a 'received intellectual property complaint'
So in reality Amazon has nothing to worry about as these companies already police the internet and remove any listings that they don't like, so even if a product was listed and did not have approval, it would be spotted by them.
Amazon needs to look at how they look at LOA's and the route to getting them by the seller, this would seriously increase revenue IMO.
Seller_zOYeT4NVTdUGV
It is a catch 22 situation for all. On the one hand, the Brand owners want to hold Amazon responsible for any case of IP infringement by anybody on Amazon so Amazon has retaliated by basically forcing Brand owners to give LOAs to everybody or there re-sellers with be removed and hurt the Brand owners sales.
As usual, us sellers are caught in the middle, this time it's an IP 'who is responsible' war. As usual us sellers simply have to sit tight and wait for the referee, no doubt some governmental regulator to step in, but at the end of the day, like any war, it is pointless and there are no winners, only losers.
If we want something done, we all need to contact some regulatory body to step in, venting our frustrations here, as past issues have proven, will get no results unfortunately!
So on that note, I am off to see what body could to what to contribute to a resolution and see what comes of that!
In the meantime, good luck to all and batten down the hatches.
Julia_Amzn
Hello Sellers,
Thank you for a very interesting and valuable discussion on the Letter of Authorization requirement process. I will review all your comments and summarize your feedback, which will be forwarded to the internal team.
Please keep adding your thoughts on how we could improve this process to make it more transparent for sellers while protecting your listings from intellectual property infringements.
Best regards, Julia.
Seller_RguKGMHvWFmo3
Amazon over relies on AI
True across many processes.
Bring back humans with some business acumen and common sense.
Seller_AJxxLujbGDqaW
I found this on a previous post and I think it just shows no matter how precise and accurate a seller is to try and educate Amazon, they are not interested and nobody knows anything except Amazon and in this case they are clearly wrong:
Copied from a previous thread:
It’s become increasingly clear that Amazon staff often misunderstand the concept of Letters of Authorization (LOA) and who should issue them. Let’s break it down clearly for everyone.
The Basics of Licensing
When a popular brand — let’s use **Disney** as an example — owns an intellectual property (IP), they can grant other companies the license to create products using their characters and designs. For instance, **Disney** may license **Funko** to create collectible figures featuring beloved characters like **Woody from Toy Story**.
In this scenario:
- **Disney** owns the IP.
- **Funko** has the license to create and distribute products featuring Disney’s IP.
Who Controls Distribution?
Here’s where the confusion happens:
- In the agreement between **Disney** and **Funko**, **Funko** has the right to control **who sells their products**, not **Disney**.
- This means if a seller wants to list **Funko’s Disney-branded products** on Amazon, the **Letter of Authorization** should come from **Funko** — the brand manufacturing and distributing the product — not **Disney**.
**Disney** would only issue an LOA if they were directly manufacturing and distributing the products themselves, which they are not in this case.
Why This Matters
When Amazon instructs sellers to get an LOA from **Disney** instead of **Funko**, it leads to unnecessary delays and frustration. **Disney** has no obligation or authority to approve resellers of **Funko’s** licensed products. It’s **Funko’s** right to determine who can distribute their products, per their licensing agreement.
The Ask: Educate Amazon Staff Properly
To avoid further confusion, Amazon must ensure their staff understands these key points:
1. **The brand that manufactures and distributes the product is responsible for issuing the LOA — not the original IP owner.**
2. **If a company like Funko holds the license, they decide who can sell their products, not Disney.**
3. **Sellers should only be asked for LOAs from the brand producing and distributing the item, not the IP owner unless they are one and the same.**
By understanding this licensing structure, Amazon can prevent unnecessary roadblocks and create a smoother process for legitimate sellers.
Let’s get this right — sellers and brands deserve clarity and accuracy when it comes to LOAs!
