"EBay has scored an important victory against a longtime legal nemesis.
In a long-awaited decision in a four-year-old trademark lawsuit against eBay brought by jeweler Tiffany and Co., Judge Richard Sullivan of the Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled Monday that the online retailer does not bear a legal responsibility to prevent its users from selling counterfeit items on its marketplace. The decision in the closely watched case, which will likely be appealed by Tiffany, reaffirms that Internet companies do not have to actively filter their sites for copyrighted or trademarked material. Rather, they can rely on intellectual property-holders to monitor the sites, as long as the retailers take material down when rights-holders complain. The decision marks a dramatic turn in eBay's recent courtroom fortunes. The ruling comes a week after a French judge ordered eBay to pay $60 million to French luxury goods maker LVMH, the maker of Louis Vuitton handbags. In April, a German appeals court ruled that eBay must take preventative measures against the sale of counterfeit Rolex watches."
I believe this indicates that European courts generally afford more protection to trademark owners than American courts, perhaps because luxury brands are flagships of their export economy to a greater extent than the US. Tiffany is a well known name but not in the same league as LVMH or Rolex as an export engine. You may read the court opinion here:
The court recognizes that while restricting sales of counterfeits is legitimate, restricting the secondary market in genuine brand name merchandise (which trademark owners such as Tiffany would also like to do) is not. On the other hand, Ebay's contention that is it just an electronic classified ad service is rejected - instead the court considers ebay to be more like the operator of an electronic flea market who rents "tables" to sellers. Such an operator has certain duties to prevent sales of counterfeits once they are pointed out to them but is not required to anticipate the possibility of future counterfeit sales in advance. Basically the court puts the burden on the trademark owner to point out which goods are counterfeit. Tiffany wanted to shortcut the process and have ebay assume that anyone who sold more than 5 Tiffany items was a counterfeiter - the court rejected this request as being beyond Tiffany's legal rights to demand. Tiffany apparently preferred to spend its money on lawyers suing ebay rather than doing the grunt work of searching for counterfeits on a daily basis - they only employed 1 paralegal to do this, while the money they spend on this suit could have paid for an army of paralegals for decades. I think the court strikes the right balance and I applaud their wisdom. Trademark owners can be bullies with their cease and desist letters because even if you as an individual are within your rights, defending yourself in court would cost far more than what you have to gain. So you give in to the blackmail and comply. Unfortunately, Tiffany chose this time to pick on the deep pocketed ebay so their bullying failed.
>goods maker LVMH, the maker of Louis Vuitton handbags. In April, a German >appeals court ruled that eBay must take preventative measures against the >sale of counterfeit Rolex watches."
>I believe this indicates that European courts generally afford more >protection to trademark owners than American courts, perhaps because luxury >brands are flagships of their export economy to a greater extent than the >US. Tiffany is a well known name but not in the same league as LVMH or Rolex >as an export engine. You may read the court opinion here:
Must be because they know that they don't reply to emails or phone calls, so they need all the help they can get. ;-)
Recall about 5 months ago when i contacted Greiner to get some pepers for the B200 ? I did that again since and still nada.. A bunch of fucks and i hope someone will fake their machines. I have sent emails to Japanes, Chinese, Taiwanese and indeed US companies before and a reply(be it positive or negative) was there within 24 hours..
><snip> >>goods maker LVMH, the maker of Louis Vuitton handbags. In April, a German >>appeals court ruled that eBay must take preventative measures against the >>sale of counterfeit Rolex watches."
>>I believe this indicates that European courts generally afford more >>protection to trademark owners than American courts, perhaps because luxury >>brands are flagships of their export economy to a greater extent than the >>US. Tiffany is a well known name but not in the same league as LVMH or Rolex >>as an export engine. You may read the court opinion here:
>Must be because they know that they don't reply to emails or phone >calls, so they need all the help they can get. ;-)
>Recall about 5 months ago when i contacted Greiner to get some pepers >for the B200 ? I did that again since and still nada.. >A bunch of fucks and i hope someone will fake their machines. I have >sent emails to Japanes, Chinese, Taiwanese and indeed US companies >before and a reply(be it positive or negative) was there within 24 >hours..
Whoops. Gotta take some of that back.. They're either reading the group or got a lousy mail server. This time i did get a reply just today. Weird. Looking at the headersm, it arrived some 7 days after the send date. :-/
I had written to Ebay regarding their limits on luxury items and finally received a response:
"Thank you for writing eBay in regard to your desire to create a legally compliant listing.
"Because eBay does not handle or inspect the items offered for sale, we are not in a position to approve or endorse your listings. I encourage you to take the steps that you feel necessary to satisfy your concerns regarding the legitimacy of the item and to be sure that your listing follows eBay policy.
Dunno if things are different for EU sellers of it my almost 10 years of selling on Ebay has anything to do with the response to me but my listings of various "luxury" watches has not been interfered with.
> "EBay has scored an important victory against a longtime legal nemesis.
> In a long-awaited decision in a four-year-old trademark lawsuit against > eBay brought by jeweler Tiffany and Co., Judge Richard Sullivan of the > Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled Monday that the online > retailer does not bear a legal responsibility to prevent its users from > selling counterfeit items on its marketplace. > The decision in the closely watched case, which will likely be appealed > by Tiffany, reaffirms that Internet companies do not have to actively > filter their sites for copyrighted or trademarked material. Rather, they > can rely on intellectual property-holders to monitor the sites, as long > as the retailers take material down when rights-holders complain. The > decision marks a dramatic turn in eBay's recent courtroom fortunes. The > ruling comes a week after a French judge ordered eBay to pay $60 million > to French luxury goods maker LVMH, the maker of Louis Vuitton handbags. > In April, a German appeals court ruled that eBay must take preventative > measures against the sale of counterfeit Rolex watches."
> I believe this indicates that European courts generally afford more > protection to trademark owners than American courts, perhaps because > luxury brands are flagships of their export economy to a greater extent > than the US. Tiffany is a well known name but not in the same league as > LVMH or Rolex as an export engine. You may read the court opinion here:
> The court recognizes that while restricting sales of counterfeits is > legitimate, restricting the secondary market in genuine brand name > merchandise (which trademark owners such as Tiffany would also like to > do) is not. On the other hand, Ebay's contention that is it just an > electronic classified ad service is rejected - instead the court > considers ebay to be more like the operator of an electronic flea market > who rents "tables" to sellers. Such an operator has certain duties to > prevent sales of counterfeits once they are pointed out to them but is > not required to anticipate the possibility of future counterfeit sales > in advance. Basically the court puts the burden on the trademark owner > to point out which goods are counterfeit. Tiffany wanted to shortcut the > process and have ebay assume that anyone who sold more than 5 Tiffany > items was a counterfeiter - the court rejected this request as being > beyond Tiffany's legal rights to demand. Tiffany apparently preferred > to spend its money on lawyers suing ebay rather than doing the grunt > work of searching for counterfeits on a daily basis - they only employed > 1 paralegal to do this, while the money they spend on this suit could > have paid for an army of paralegals for decades. I think the court > strikes the right balance and I applaud their wisdom. Trademark owners > can be bullies with their cease and desist letters because even if you > as an individual are within your rights, defending yourself in court > would cost far more than what you have to gain. So you give in to the > blackmail and comply. Unfortunately, Tiffany chose this time to pick on > the deep pocketed ebay so their bullying failed.
