The reviews stop being yours
Someone buys a $27 copy and opens a bag of nothing like the photos. They have no idea they bought a fake. They leave the review under your name, and your support inbox gets the rest.
We crawl the open web for shops selling your photographs, score what turns up against your catalogue, and put every one in front of a person before anything goes out in your name.
$95.00
northbaygoods.com/atlas-card-holder
$27.40
atlas-wallets.shop/p/8841
Example finding. Northbay Goods is a brand we made up, and the figures are illustrative.
The lost order is the part you can count. These three cost more, and they compound quietly while you are busy running the business.
Someone buys a $27 copy and opens a bag of nothing like the photos. They have no idea they bought a fake. They leave the review under your name, and your support inbox gets the rest.
Just not to you. Price is the tell. A copy undercuts far enough that a shopper doing one quick search finds a cheaper version of the exact photograph they were already looking at.
Lookalike domains bid on your own brand name and rank directly underneath you. Every dollar you spend teaching people to search for you sends a slice of them somewhere else.
Matching photographs is the easy half. The half that matters is telling a counterfeit apart from a retailer you actually sell to, a review blog, and your own listing on a marketplace you forgot about.
The real review screen, running a made-up brand's data.
Perceptual image matching against every photograph in your catalogue, then everything around the photograph: price against your list price, how old the domain is, whether the seller is on your authorised list, and whether the page is a shop at all.
Every finding carries this list. A reviewer who believes the price was compared, when it never was, is worse off than one who knows it wasn't.
Findings land in your dashboard with the evidence attached: both photographs, both prices, the live link, the page as we captured it and the minute we saw it. You approve or you decline. A decline teaches the matcher, so the same false positive does not come back next month.
Approved findings become a takedown notice drafted against the right channel for that host, which is rarely the same twice. We file it, log what comes back, and keep the whole thread in one place so you are not reconstructing it from your inbox three months later.
KopyKatch is in private beta, and we are not going to print a round number we have not earned. Here is the last complete run, against a public direct-to-consumer accessories brand.
product photographs read out of the catalogue
candidate pages found and analysed
opened as findings for a person to review
pages we could not read, and said so instead of calling them clean
Thirty-nine pages answered with a bot check instead of a listing. A tool that quietly counts those as nothing found hands you a clean report that is not true. Ours marks them unreadable and puts them in a list you can open, because "we could not get in" and "there is nothing there" are very different sentences.
Some of those 25 findings were wrong. Three were the brand's own listings on a checkout service it uses, two were review articles the matcher took for shops. We know because we read all 25 by hand. Tightening that is what the next release is.
All four of these work. They fail in different places, and the place they fail is usually the month you get busy.
| KopyKatch | A freelance VA | Someone in-house | A law firm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What it costs | Flat monthly, cancel any month | Hourly, and the hours grow | A salary, plus the hiring | By the hour, per notice |
| Who does the looking | A crawler on a schedule, checked by a person | A person searching by hand | A person searching by hand | Usually you, then you send it on |
| Time to the first finding | The week you connect your catalogue | Depends on their week | After hiring, then training | After the engagement letter |
| When your catalogue doubles | Nothing changes on your side | Roughly double the hours | You hire again | Roughly double the bill |
| Who files the takedown | We draft it, you approve it, we send it | Often nobody does | Your hire, learning as they go | They do, and they do it well |
Most pages like this show a wall of platform logos and let you assume they all work the same way. They don't. Half the internet answers a crawler with a bot check, and pretending otherwise is how you end up with a clean report and a live counterfeit.
Open storefronts and the searches that lead to them. We fetch the page, capture it, pull the photographs and the price, and keep the evidence.
The big marketplaces block crawlers, and we are not going to defeat that. We reach them the way they are meant to be reached: rights-owner and brand registry programmes, which is also the only channel that can actually get a listing removed.
Named as platforms, not as partners. Enrolment needs your trademark and takes a few weeks. We walk you through it.
You are not account 4,812. The person who built the matcher reads your findings, and answers you himself when one of them is wrong.
No annual commitment, no lock-in. If a quarter goes quiet and you want to pause, pause.
Scans are on a schedule. Copies go up on a Sunday just as happily as a Tuesday, and so does the crawler.
Every finding stores the page as we saw it, both photographs, the price and a timestamp. A notice with a capture behind it goes better than one without.
What was found, what you approved, what came down, what is still open. One page. A monthly version if you need something for a board.
A shared Slack channel. You ask about a finding, you get an answer, not a case number and a service level agreement.
What you sell, where you sell it, and who is allowed to sell it. Twenty minutes. If we are not the right fit we will say so on the call.
Product photographs in, authorised sellers listed, price list attached. Upload it directly, or point us at your store and we will read it.
Usually the same day. You see the entire run, including the pages we could not read, rather than a filtered highlight reel.
Work the queue, tick what is real, decline what is not. Every decline makes the next scan sharper. We take it from there.
No. They block crawlers deliberately and we are not going to work around that. We go through their rights-owner programmes instead, which is slower to set up and is also the only route that can get a listing removed. Anyone telling you they crawl those sites at scale is describing something that breaks the first time it matters.
You decline it and it never becomes a notice. Every finding shows its reasoning and, just as importantly, what it could not check. A false positive is a cost we would rather pay than miss a real copy, so the matcher leans towards showing you too much.
It depends entirely on who is hosting it. A Shopify store can go in days. A registrar in a jurisdiction that does not care can take months, or never happen. We tell you which one you are looking at when you approve it, not afterwards.
Your photographs sit in private storage and are never used to train anything shared between brands. Links inside the dashboard are short-lived and signed. Your account is yours, and no other brand's data touches it.
Not to start scanning. You do need one for most marketplace brand registries, and for the strongest kind of takedown notice. If you do not have one yet, we will tell you exactly what it changes.
One scan of your catalogue, the whole result, and a walk through what we found and what we missed. If there is nothing worth acting on, we will tell you that too.
Private beta. We take a small number of brands at a time so every finding gets read.