A listing that returns after a takedown is normal, not a failure of the first report. Document the reappearance, file again with the prior case reference, and escalate through repeat-infringer channels instead of starting over each time.
Sellers game the system in predictable ways: a new seller account with the same inventory, a slightly altered product title, photos cropped just enough to dodge image matching, or the same listing relisted after a short cooling period. Marketplaces process millions of reports, so a fresh submission often lands in front of a reviewer with no memory of the first one. Treating each return as a brand-new case is exactly what the seller is counting on.
Screenshot the relisted page with the date visible, save the page source, and keep your original takedown confirmation with its case number. When you refile, reference the prior case and state plainly that this is the same seller or the same infringing content returning. Reviewers move faster on a documented repeat than on a first-time complaint, and the paper trail becomes the foundation for escalation if the portal route stalls.
Every major marketplace has a policy against repeat infringers, but it rarely triggers from portal reports alone. After two or three documented cycles, escalate: brand registry support tickets that cite the case history, the platform IP escalation email where one exists, and for high-volume sellers, a notice that preserves your options. The goal is to move from listing-level whack-a-mole to account-level action.
If the same operation keeps returning under new accounts, the problem is no longer a listing, it is a business. That is when brands bring in counsel for cease-and-desist letters, consider test purchases to identify the supply chain, and in serious cases pursue legal action. Most brands never need to go that far; a disciplined document-and-escalate routine resolves the large majority of re-listings.