Content not eligible for Takedown

This document defines the types of content that are not eligible for removal through Axur's Takedown process. Axur's Takedown is an automated tool that sends extrajudicial notifications to request the removal of fraudulent content. However, not all online content falls within the types of brand protection infringements we handle and the reporting channels we have automated. The scenarios described below are outside Axur's extrajudicial scope, and the reasons are explained for each case.

Core principle: Axur acts on fraud and imminent fraud risk. Our scope is combating digital fraud and preventing imminent fraud risk. All situations described below represent content that, while it may mention or use a brand, does not constitute fraud or present imminent fraud risk, and therefore is not eligible for extrajudicial removal.

Axur does not handle tickets related to freedom of expression (fair use), as these cases do not constitute fraud. They represent the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, characterized by the use of a brand for purposes of illustration, commentary, criticism, or information on matters of public interest.

This right is widely protected under international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the United Nations, recognizes freedom of expression as a fundamental right (Article 19). The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides strong protections against prior censorship. The European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) also enshrines the right to freedom of expression. In Brazil, Articles 5 (subsections IV and IX) and 220 of the Federal Constitution prohibit prior censorship.

Attempting to remove such content may be interpreted as prior censorship, creating legal and reputational risks not only for Axur but also for the requesting brand.

Examples

Fake news is purely defamatory content and should be pursued through legal action. However, fraudulent news (hoaxes) uses fake news as a vehicle to carry out scams, for example, an article portraying a well-known company executive as a promoter of an investment platform, when in reality the platform is a fraudulent scheme designed to steal users’ funds. Hoaxes ARE eligible for takedown as they constitute fraud.

Profiles created for comedic purposes, such as meme pages or humor pages based on brands. These profiles do not attempt to impersonate the official brand and do not constitute fraud. Platforms generally protect parody content as a form of artistic expression, in line with international principles of freedom of expression.

Profiles created to discuss a product, service, brand, or famous person. They typically gather fans and relevant information about the subject. They do not constitute brand impersonation, as they do not attempt to deceive users.

Journalistic websites, informational blogs, and editorial content pages that mention the brand referentially are not eligible for removal. This includes press articles, market analyses, product comparisons, and independent reviews. Platforms protect this type of content as an exercise of press freedom, in accordance with Article 19 of the ICCPR and national press freedom laws.

This also applies to the client’s own content that has been syndicated or republished by third parties, such as press releases, official communications, or marketing materials picked up by news aggregators or partner websites. Even when the client wants an outdated version removed, the original content belongs to the brand and was published voluntarily. This does not fall within Axur’s takedown scope.

Important exception: Websites disguised as journalistic or news portals that are actually vehicles for fraud, such as fake news sites that redirect users to scams or phishing pages ARE eligible for takedown.

Reviews posted by current or former employees on employer review platforms, such as Glassdoor, Indeed, and Kununu, are not eligible for takedown. These reviews fall under freedom of expression in the context of labor relations and do not constitute fraud or trademark infringement. Review platforms explicitly protect this type of content and do not accept removal requests based on brand protection claims.

Examples

Pages, social media profiles, or apps that belong to the client's official accounts are not eligible for takedown, even if they are obsolete, without access, or compromised (hacked). These URLs belong to legitimate brand environments, and attempting removal may cause:

Our notifications are based on the premise that there is an intellectual property infringement or fraud, which does not apply to legitimate URLs. For compromised accounts, the client should handle recovery internally and/or directly with the platforms.

Examples

Fraudulent content circulating within private or closed groups on messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, Discord, and Signal is generally not eligible for takedown. These platforms operate under end-to-end encryption and/or closed-group dynamics, which creates significant limitations for extrajudicial action:

Axur typically has no direct visibility into the content shared within closed or private groups. Even in instances where Axur monitors private messages through specialized infiltration of threat groups, requesting a takedown of specific messages or groups could compromise our operational security (OPSEC). Such actions risk exposing our undercover methods and neutralizing our ability to gather further intelligence on the threat actor’s activities.

Messaging platforms generally do not accept third-party takedown requests for content within private conversations or groups, as it conflicts with their privacy and encryption policies. Even when content is identified (e.g., via user reports or screenshots), proving the existence and nature of the infringing content to the platform is significantly more difficult without direct access. The ephemeral nature of messages (auto-deletion, disappearing messages) makes evidence collection and preservation challenging. These limitations exist because messaging platforms are designed to protect user privacy under frameworks such as the EU ePrivacy Directive, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in the United States, and the Marco Civil da Internet (Law 12.965/2014) in Brazil, which restrict third-party access to private communications.

Examples

Domains with names similar to the brand but not being used for active fraud follow the "First Come, First Served" policy of domain registrars. When there is no active fraudulent content, there is no extrajudicial legal basis for removal. Axur does not handle domain disputes.

It is important to note that a domain name can be registered worldwide, especially when it is a common word (adjective, verb, object, industry, etc.), and cannot be automatically associated with a specific brand registered in a specific country.

Domains used in email addresses that distribute fraud are treated, provided we have evidence from the email headers attached. More information here.

Trademark infringement occurs when someone uses a brand's name or logo in a way that confuses consumers about the source of goods or services, leading them to believe they are dealing with the brand directly, rather than a third party.

Commercial profiles and pages that mention a brand to describe what they sell, repair, distribute, or deliver do not meet this threshold: the mention is transparent about the relationship between the third party and the brand, and there is no attempt to impersonate or mislead.

This type of referential use is explicitly protected under international trademark law. The doctrine of nominative fair use (U.S., New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, 1992), the EU Trademark Directive (Article 14), and Brazil's Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279/96) all establish that a trademark holder cannot prevent third parties from mentioning a brand for descriptive or informational purposes. Attempting to remove content that falls within this scope may expose both Axur and the client to legal risk.

Examples

Social media profiles without posts and/or logo are not considered an intellectual property violation by most platforms (with the exception of Meta, which may act in these cases). These profiles may be used for various legitimate purposes, such as future review, parody, or even a name for a different category of products and services. Platforms generally operate under a first-come, first-served policy for usernames.

Examples

Search engines like Google allow any company or person to sponsor any search term, as long as the ad does not infringe the brand's trademark or attempt to impersonate the brand of the sponsored term. This is a practice known as "brand bidding" and is permitted by Google Ads policies and other advertising platforms. Axur only acts when the ad constitutes fraud or deceptive use of the brand, specifically when ads use the brand in a way that causes confusion or misleadingly directs users to believe they are interacting with the official brand.

Data that is publicly accessible and does not constitute personal or sensitive information is not treated as data leakage. Usernames, publicly used corporate emails, and commonly known domain names do not qualify as content eligible for takedown. Cases where exposed data does not violate the usage policies of the platforms where it is published, nor is protected by local legislation such as the GDPR (European Union), CCPA (California, USA), or LGPD (Brazil), are also not treatable.

Examples

The simple mention of the brand name or domain in repositories, lists, or other public contexts, without trademark infringement, confusion with the official brand, or any type of fraud, is not eligible for takedown. This includes mentions in code repositories, adblock lists, public databases, among others.

This is especially relevant for brand names that coincide with generic or descriptive terms, such as "Delta" or "Apple", which are commonly used in unrelated contexts. When a term is used in its generic meaning (e.g., "delta" referring to a river formation, or "apple" meaning the fruit), there is no trademark relationship and therefore no basis for takedown. Homonymy and genericness of terms do not constitute infringement.

Examples

Listings for products that were legitimately purchased by consumers and are being resold for personal use do not constitute fraud or intellectual property infringement.

Examples

Sales listings that have already been completed, paused, or are inactive are not eligible for takedown, as they no longer represent an active threat to consumers.

Examples

Pages automatically generated by search engines, content indexers, or mapping/business listing platforms are not created by malicious users and therefore are not eligible for takedown. Similarly, pages listing historical app versions or that do not effectively provide app downloads do not represent a risk.

Examples

Fraudulent content hosted in deeper layers of the internet (Deep Web / Dark Web), accessible only through specialized browsers such as Tor, is not eligible for takedown. These environments operate outside the umbrella of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and other organizations responsible for organizing and regulating the surface web, such as registrars, TLDs, and conventional hosting platforms. Without these entities as intermediaries, there is no extrajudicial mechanism to request content removal.

Similarly, content hosted on decentralized platforms, such as Mastodon, Nostr, IPFS, and blockchain-hosted websites is also not eligible for takedown. Unlike Deep/Dark Web content, these platforms operate on the surface web and are publicly accessible. However, they lack a central authority or intermediary to receive and act on takedown notifications.

Examples

Content preserved in web caches or digital archives, such as Google Cache, Wayback Machine (Internet Archive), or archive.today is not eligible for takedown. Google Cache is temporary and disappears automatically once the original page is updated or removed. The Internet Archive, however, operates as a digital library under U.S. nonprofit status and does not respond to standard trademark-based removal requests. Even when the original fraudulent page has already been taken down, its archived version remains outside the scope of extrajudicial action.

Examples

Content removal requests on official streaming platforms (such as Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime, etc.) are not handled by Axur, as these pages are legitimate and any requests should be made directly to the platform owners.

Examples

When in doubt about whether content is eligible for takedown, please contact the team before creating a ticket. This way we can assess the case and confirm eligibility for removal.