Competitor has cloned my entire website – looking for advice on next legal steps.

[BLRemovals]

Hi everyone,

I run a removals company and have been operating for over 10 years. Over that time, I’ve built my website myself — including all text, service descriptions, structure, layout, CTAs, colour palette, photo galleries, and original images featuring my team in uniform.

This week, I discovered that another removals business (not in London but in a different town) has cloned my entire website, almost line by line. They’ve copied:

my pages structure
my service paragraphs
my categories
my CTAs
my colour palette
my fonts
EXACT CLONE

The only things they changed were their company name within the text paragraphs or titles, logo, phone number, and operating town.

Most importantly, they’re still using my original photographs, including ones clearly showing my staff in uniform and performing work. These images were taken by me for my business and are copyrighted.

They are actively using this cloned website to trade and generate leads, UK landline, mobile, WhatsApp

I’ve already gathered evidence (screenshots, PDFs, URLs, timestamps, etc.) and I’m planning to send a cease-and-desist, giving them 48 hours to take the site down, followed by:

- a copyright complaint to their hosting provider
- a takedown request to Google
- a registrar complaint (it’s a .uk domain)

and possibly an IPEC small claim for damages if they ignore it

Before I proceed, I’d appreciate advice from anyone who has dealt with something similar:

Is IPEC (small claims track) suitable for clear-cut copyright + passing-off cases like this?
Are damages for commercial use of original images typically awarded in these cases?
How responsive are hosting companies and registrars when a cloned site is reported with strong evidence?
Is it worth sending the cease-and-desist first, or should I go straight to DMCA/registrar?

I’m not naming the business or posting URLs — just looking for general guidance from others who’ve been through this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[DontAsk]

If it were me I would go straight for the goolies. Don’t waste time threatening or telling them what you will do. Just do it.

 

[fisicx]

Get a solicitor on the case and sending letters tomorrow. Pick up the phone and call the host. Do not delay and do not predicate. As @DontAsk say: go for the goolies.

 

[BLRemovals]

Thanks both — really appreciate the straight talk.

As Pixsy and Copytrack monitor my images, I can now see that this clone has been active since 25th August 2025.

I’ve already collected full evidence from multiple independent copyright detection platforms (Pixsy and Copytrack), including server-side file paths, filenames matching my original camera workflow, RAW filenames, and timestamps showing the images have been online for months.

 

[fisicx]

Makes no difference. Go in with guns blazing.

It might not even be a uk company, could be some scammer getting leads to sell on. Have you even checked their address is legit?

 

[cjd]

Forget about going after the people that ripped you off, you go for the host of their website. We used to get this all the time, it's a bit old now it'll probably still work. Here's some text to send to the host.

Sir / Madam,

You are hosting a website that is publishing copyright material belonging to us. I provide a list of the material below along with the original source of the protected content.

We are very protective of our brand, content and reputation so I would be grateful if you could remove the content as soon as possible.

It is not always fully understood that you are liable for the infringement of copyright once you have been notified of it, so I attach the relevant legislation for your information below.

The penalty for non-compliance is an unlimited fine plus damages and costs.

I therefore look forward to seeing the content removed within the next seven days.


Copyright material to be removed:

https://www.xxxxxx (Screenshot attached)

Copyright Ownership:
The copyright content owned by xxxx can be found on the following pages:

Relevant Law:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, Regulation 19, Hosting:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/contents/made

 

[BLRemovals]

They do have a Google Business profile, local reviews, van photos, and a publicly listed business address that matches what’s shown on their website. So on the surface, it appears to be a real UK-based operation (can't find the exact name registered in Companies House), unless the Google listing itself is somehow fabricated — which is possible these days, but hard to confirm without deeper checks. Addresses and phone numbers are also the same on their social media, Facebook, Instagram, and some listing directories

 

[ThatDevAaron]

Forget about going after the people that ripped you off, you go for the host of their website. We used to get this all the time, it's a bit old now it'll probably still work. Here's some text to send to the host.

Sir / Madam,

You are hosting a website that is publishing copyright material belonging to us. I provide a list of the material below along with the original source of the protected content.

We are very protective of our brand, content and reputation so I would be grateful if you could remove the content as soon as possible.

It is not always fully understood that you are liable for the infringement of copyright once you have been notified of it, so I attach the relevant legislation for your information below.

The penalty for non-compliance is an unlimited fine plus damages and costs.

I therefore look forward to seeing the content removed within the next seven days.


Copyright material to be removed:

https://www.xxxxxx (Screenshot attached)

Copyright Ownership:
The copyright content owned by xxxx can be found on the following pages:

Relevant Law:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, Regulation 19, Hosting:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/contents/made

Unless their host is based in one of the many regions that don't need to comply with UK copyright etc.

Going after them directly is the best option, their host may disable their website, but they can, fairly easily, get back online, and if they've taken the time to copy your website, I doubt they'll care about a 10 minute host switch process.

 

[pentel]

It is possible that they have paid someone for a website and the "designer" has decided to take some shortcuts.

How they react once you make initial contact may reveal what has happened here.

 

[BLRemovals]

It is possible that they have paid someone for a website and the "designer" has decided to take some shortcuts.

How they react once you make initial contact may reveal what has happened here.

What type of business owner will leave the developer publish without checking, especialy with someones uniformed staff pictures all around the content

 

[cjd]

Unless their host is based in one of the many regions that don't need to comply with UK copyright etc.

Going after them directly is the best option, their host may disable their website, but they can, fairly easily, get back online, and if they've taken the time to copy your website, I doubt they'll care about a 10 minute host switch process.

We did this dozens of times back when everybody thought they could be a telephone company, I can't think of an occasion when it didn't work - very quickly too.

What we found was that most of the time, the actual owners of the website didn't know that whoever they'd used to make their website had just ripped it off. The host told them and often they took it down themselves.

But sure, if the company with the website did it themselves, they would move it, and in that case they're unlikely to be bothered by you threatening them directly either.

Like I say, we did it dozens of times and found that going to the host was the best way - they really do not want to become liable for someone else's problems.

 

[pentel]

What type of business owner will leave the developer publish without checking, especialy with someones uniformed staff pictures all around the content

Nothing surprises me anymore.......

 

[cjd]

btw, they're generally called DMCA Takedown Notices - although that's a US term. In the Uk they're technically called Notice of Infringements but here and Europe Takedown Notice does it.

 

[WaveJumper]

Keep us updated

 

[DontAsk]

What type of business owner will leave the developer publish without checking, especialy with someones uniformed staff pictures all around the content

One that doesn't really have a clue about the internet but feels they need to be "on it".

Yes, go for the host if they respect UK law.

If not there are other attack vectors:

Do they have any Facebook, etc., presence? Are they infringing there, too?

Does the Google profile infringe in any way?

Is there anything on the site (usually in a footer) or page source to indicate who the developer was?

 

[ThatDevAaron]

btw, they're generally called DMCA Takedown Notices - although that's a US term. In the Uk they're technically called Notice of Infringements but here and Europe Takedown Notice does it.

So you'd know, these copyright laws are only valid in their respective regions, for example, we offer hosting in Sweden, and are NON COMPLIANT WITH ANY AND ALL DMCA REQUESTS, not because we permit illegal activity, but because we simply don't cooperate with foreign requests. The same can be said for any host that isn't UK based.

 

[kyri1968]

Hi everyone,

I run a removals company and have been operating for over 10 years. Over that time, I’ve built my website myself — including all text, service descriptions, structure, layout, CTAs, colour palette, photo galleries, and original images featuring my team in uniform.

This week, I discovered that another removals business (not in London but in a different town) has cloned my entire website, almost line by line. They’ve copied:

my pages structure
my service paragraphs
my categories
my CTAs
my colour palette
my fonts
EXACT CLONE

The only things they changed were their company name within the text paragraphs or titles, logo, phone number, and operating town.

Most importantly, they’re still using my original photographs, including ones clearly showing my staff in uniform and performing work. These images were taken by me for my business and are copyrighted.

They are actively using this cloned website to trade and generate leads, UK landline, mobile, WhatsApp

I’ve already gathered evidence (screenshots, PDFs, URLs, timestamps, etc.) and I’m planning to send a cease-and-desist, giving them 48 hours to take the site down, followed by:

- a copyright complaint to their hosting provider
- a takedown request to Google
- a registrar complaint (it’s a .uk domain)

and possibly an IPEC small claim for damages if they ignore it

Before I proceed, I’d appreciate advice from anyone who has dealt with something similar:

Is IPEC (small claims track) suitable for clear-cut copyright + passing-off cases like this?
Are damages for commercial use of original images typically awarded in these cases?
How responsive are hosting companies and registrars when a cloned site is reported with strong evidence?
Is it worth sending the cease-and-desist first, or should I go straight to DMCA/registrar?

I’m not naming the business or posting URLs — just looking for general guidance from others who’ve been through this.

Thanks in advance.

You’re doing the right things.


IPEC Small Claims is fine for this. They deal with basic copyright cases all the time, and what you’ve described is a textbook example. When someone uses your photos for their business, the court normally awards some level of damages.


Most hosting companies act quickly if you show them proof. Side-by-side screenshots, timestamps, and the original files are usually enough for them to either pull the site or force changes. Registrars don’t normally deal with content, but the host will.


I’d still send a cease-and-desist first. Give them 48 hours. If nothing happens, then report it to the host, Google, and the registrar. Once Google removes the pages, the site becomes pretty useless anyway.


Passing-off can be harder to prove, but the fact they’re using your photos with your staff makes your case stronger.
With evidence that clear, they normally fold fast.

 

[The Resolver]

Is IPEC (small claims track) suitable for clear-cut copyright + passing-off cases like this?

Is it worth sending the cease-and-desist first, or should I go straight to DMCA/registrar?

Yes - that is what the court was set up to deal with. But specifically for small claims so its jurisdiction is for claims up to £10,000, You need to take advice on the value of your claim .

As to writing first , yes you must do that to comply with the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct.. You can be penalised in costs if you simply issue court p[roceedings without giving the Defendant an opportunity to reach a resolution.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

What type of business owner will leave the developer publish without checking, especialy with someones uniformed staff pictures all around the content

Small chance but maybe the business owner thought they were bought in stock images and the webguy has winged it?

 

[cjd]

fyi, use

https://www.whois.com/whois

to find the host.

Use the Abuse Email at the bottom to contact them.

Tell us what happened next.

 

[BLRemovals]

A quick follow-up for everyone who offered advice.

After I served a formal notice to the business and the hosting provider regarding the unauthorised use of our copyrighted images, the entire website was immediately taken offline. Their Google Business Profile now shows “temporarily closed”, and the owner replied directly to me with the following statement:

“Hi Ivelin, thanks for informing me. I’m really sorry, the images were used by my developer without my knowledge. I’ve already taken my whole website offline and will remove everything from the server ASAP. It was completely unintentional. I will be removing all remaining materials from the server and rebuilding the pages from scratch to ensure that nothing belonging to your company remains.
Please note that the use of your materials was not deliberate, and I have not gained any financial benefit from them. This was an honest mistake made by the developer, and I fully acknowledged and corrected it the moment it was brought to my attention.”

At this stage, the infringing content is gone, and the website is offline.

Thanks to everyone who pointed me in the right direction.

 

[fisicx]

This was an honest mistake made by the developer

No it wasn't. It was deliberate. But as it's now been deleted it's all good.