8 OCTOBER 2026 · THE NOTICE ABOUT THIS WEBSITE
A TRADEMARK NOTICE
DOES NOT ANSWER
A CONSUMER COMPLAINT.
Platform trademark notice · no court filing shown
The notice asks for this website to be removed or disabled. My complaint about product quality, charges and service commitments still requires a substantive answer.
Independent consumer complaint and commentary by T.C. Wu. Not an official Leica website. The response below states the consumer’s position; it does not establish fraud, an unlawful motive or a court finding.
- Notice received
- 8 October 2026; corroborated in the operator’s Alibaba Cloud Message Center
- Notice reference
- 202610081440795776792
- Reporter named in the notice
- Marq Vision Inc.; said to represent Leica Camera AG and Leica Microsystems IR GmbH
- Action requested
- Removal or disabling of leica.gmbh on trademark grounds
The notice, as supplied
This is the exact screenshot supplied by the recipient. The notice says Alibaba Cloud received a trademark notice and warns that hosting services may be suspended or terminated if the dispute is not addressed.
What the notice requests
“可能引发混淆，并要求删除或禁用该侵权网站。”
Editorial English translation, not an official translation: “may cause confusion, and requests deletion or disabling of the allegedly infringing website.” The infringement allegation is the reporter’s, not a finding by this archive.
My response: answer for the money, the products and the promises
I regard a demand to disable this entire consumer record as an unacceptable use of corporate power. In my view, it risks silencing the account of a customer who says he has been misled and left without an adequate remedy. I object to that pressure.
My allegation remains that the products and service I paid for did not meet the commitments made to me. Leica must account for money received, the quality of its products and the warranty or goodwill commitments applicable to my case. A trademark notice does not resolve those issues. Identify any specific trademark objection, but also answer the underlying consumer complaint with documents and a practical remedy.
The company sent a reply from Winter on 2 October 2026, including its position that the matter was closed. I acknowledge that reply and dispute that the underlying issues have been resolved, but I believe it did not answer my questions point by point.
Document distinction: the quoted €1,303 + VAT figure is not, by itself, proof of payment. Purchase receipts, estimates, invoices and remittances must be matched to the correct camera, service order and work. I ask the company to reconcile those records, including orders 1058152 and 1105973, rather than conflate different products.
2 October company reply: disputed closure; itemised accounting requested →
What I require in writing
- An itemised reconciliation of each relevant charge: amount, date, order, product, work invoiced and amount actually received.
- A clear comparison of what service was paid for or promised, what was performed, and what remains disputed or unfulfilled.
- The warranty or goodwill terms applicable to each product and repair, with the factual and contractual basis for any refusal of coverage.
- A proportionate proposal for repair, replacement or refund, with a responsible contact and a concrete timetable.
- The exact URLs, marks or presentation complained of, the claimed basis of objection and any requested targeted change; explain why removal of the whole archive was requested.
- Preservation of relevant correspondence, quotations, invoices, payment records, service reports and complaint records.