/Advise
Momentum Dies Where All Processes Lack Ownership
January 16, 2026
/Advise
January 16, 2026

In a lot of growing companies, brand protection ends up being everyone's part-time responsibility and no one's actual job — legal notices something, marketing notices something else, and neither has the bandwidth or mandate to run it as an ongoing function.
Infringements get noticed inconsistently, often by whoever happens to see them first. Takedown notices get filed sporadically. Nobody can say, with confidence, how much unauthorized use is actually happening at any given time.
In-house legal is well suited to reviewing contracts and handling genuine disputes — it's rarely staffed or resourced to process a continuous stream of takedown notices across a dozen platforms.
Brand and marketing teams are measured on growth and engagement, not enforcement. Even when they notice infringement, chasing it down usually isn't what their role is actually evaluated on.
Whether it's an internal hire, a specific team member's defined responsibility, or an external partner, brand protection works best when one party is accountable for the full loop — monitoring, filing, tracking, and reporting outcomes.
For most growing brands, this doesn't mean building an internal enforcement team from scratch. It means designating clear accountability — internally or through a partner — so the function doesn't quietly fall through the cracks.
Without a clear owner, brand protection tends to get attention only after something visibly goes wrong — a viral counterfeit, a major re-upload — rather than being handled proactively before it becomes a bigger problem.
Brand protection doesn't need to sit in any particular department to work. It does need one clear owner, with the mandate and the bandwidth to actually run it consistently — otherwise it stays a task nobody quite gets to.
