Cease-and-Desist Response
& Defense

Sending a cease-and-desist on the trademark side is a different engagement than responding to one. SGL handles the sending side under Trademark Enforcement & Cease-and-Desist, which covers brand-protection enforcement letters, evidence packages, and post-letter negotiation. This page covers the response side only, what to do when a letter arrives at your business or in your inbox. If your situation is enforcement against an infringer, route to the sibling page; if you have received a letter, the rest of this page applies.

First, do not pay or admit anything. Stock-photo demand letters are often negotiable, and the amount cited is usually higher than what the sender will accept. Preserve evidence of how you sourced the image, your license history, and any platform metadata. The response strategy depends on whether the work is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, when registration occurred, and whether your use qualifies as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. For broader DMCA-driven copyright disputes including troll demand letters, see DMCA Counter-Notice & Demand Letter Response.

Both at the same time. The platform takedown and the legal response run on different clocks and need different documents. Your platform appeal addresses the policy claim that triggered Brand Registry or VeRO removal. Your legal response addresses the underlying IP claim that led the rights-holder to file the complaint in the first place. Reinstating the listing without resolving the underlying claim risks re-takedown on the next complaint cycle. SGL handles the legal response side here; the platform-side reinstatement work lives at Platform Account Reinstatement & Appeals.

Read it, preserve everything, and do not respond yet. Most cease-and-desist deadlines are 10 to 30 days, which gives you time to evaluate the claim with counsel before the clock matters. Save the letter, all envelopes, all metadata, and any related communications. Take screenshots of the activity the letter complains about, but do not edit, delete, or alter anything before getting advice. A premature reply can lock you into the wrong concession; silence past the deadline is also a position the sender will use against you.

Ignoring usually escalates the dispute. Most senders draft cease-and-desists expecting a response, and silence signals either that you cannot defend the claim or that you do not take it seriously. Both interpretations push the sender toward filing suit, lodging a platform complaint, or asking a court for an injunction. In intellectual-property cases, ignoring a cease-and-desist can later support a claim of willful infringement, which under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 opens enhanced damages and attorney's fees. The goal of a strategic response is to take ignorance off the table without locking in a bad position.

Several, depending on your facts. Senior use means you used the mark before the sender did, which can give you superior rights even without registration. Fair use covers descriptive use of common terms and nominative use when referencing the sender's product. No likelihood of confusion applies when you and the sender operate in different markets or use marks that are not meaningfully similar under the Sleekcraft factors and equivalent tests. A weak or generic mark argument applies when the sender's mark is descriptive or unprotectable. Each defense requires evidence, not just argument.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and the strategy call answers it. Quick settlement can be the right move when the claim has clear merit, the demand is proportional, and the cost of fighting exceeds the cost of paying. It is the wrong move when the claim is overbroad, the demand anchors at the sender's opening number, or the settlement language locks you into concessions that affect future business. Many demand letters cite higher numbers than the sender will actually accept; that is not a coincidence. The correct strategy depends on a sober reading of the claim's strength, your exposure, and your alternative paths.

Yes, in some cases, through a declaratory judgment action. A declaratory-judgment lawsuit asks a court to rule that you are not infringing, and federal law makes one available when the cease-and-desist creates a credible, specific threat of litigation. Filing first lets you choose the venue, which can shift leverage materially. Importantly, SGL is not a litigation firm. If a declaratory-judgment action is the right path, we draft the written legal opinion that supports the strategy and refer the filing work to outside counsel. Most cease-and-desist disputes never reach this stage.

It depends on what response the situation actually needs. A claim-merit review and strategy memo can cost a few hundred dollars on the low end. A drafted attorney-letterhead response typically runs in the low four figures across most US firms. Multi-round negotiation, coexistence drafting, or settlement structuring scales with complexity. Across the licensed US-firm market, published flat fees for a single cease-and-desist response cluster in the $500 to $1,500 range, with custom-scope or high-stakes work moving above that. SGL's flat-fee tiers above describe what each engagement covers; the strategy call sets which tier fits.

A credible letter cites a real legal basis, names a specific registration or right, and identifies how your conduct violates it. Look for: a federal trademark or copyright registration number you can verify through the USPTO TESS database or Copyright.gov, specific factual allegations rather than vague claims, and a sender that is identifiable as a real attorney or rights-holder. Letters that assert rights without registration evidence, demand large damages disconnected from any actual harm, or come from generic enforcement mills are weaker than they look. A claim-merit review separates real letters from pressure tactics.