This may end up being good news for Rickenbacker and others fighting the war on fakes and knock offs.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060322.wrlawyers22/BNStory/Business/home
E-Bay Sued and May Be Found Responsible for Fakes
E-Bay Sued and May Be Found Responsible for Fakes
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
Nice! "Depraved Indifference" is always used on Law & Order to nail companies that have no conscience.
I wonder if the law firm would want to see examples of eBay's slowness/lack of response in regard to fake auctions, to bolster their case?
I wonder if the law firm would want to see examples of eBay's slowness/lack of response in regard to fake auctions, to bolster their case?
It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing. - Seneca
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
I like the ring of "depraved indifference". It applies to so many things in which the so-called responsible parties, simply aren't.
Like....
Oh, never mind.
Like....
Oh, never mind.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
I agree with Ebay's position. It isn't possible nor practical for Ebay to vet every auction to ensure that fake items are not being sold.
If companies like Tiffany are interested in keep fakes from being sold thru venues like Ebay, they should do what Rickenbacker does: diligent attention to auctions and a cooperative relationship with eBay to make it easier to both identify fakes and to get the listings removed.
If companies like Tiffany are interested in keep fakes from being sold thru venues like Ebay, they should do what Rickenbacker does: diligent attention to auctions and a cooperative relationship with eBay to make it easier to both identify fakes and to get the listings removed.
But eBay stopped the sale of firearms on its site (which in some states would be legal) in part due to a possible liability issue, nor does it allow the sale of drugs, prescription or otherwise on its site (illegal in all states). To me, this indicates that eBay has acknowledged some sort of responsibility to police its site. It would appear that it will take a court to define the limits of that responsibility.
It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing. - Seneca
IMHO, the trouble is, there's demand for fakes. And when there's a demand, there will be offers... Cheap knock-offs are often bought by those who cannot afford a real one but want something that at least looks alike. The one who's seeking for a real, quality product won't be hunting for a knock-off. Given that he/she knows it's a knock-off, of course...
However, in my opinion, if a fake hits the auction, it should be at least noted it's a fake.
However, in my opinion, if a fake hits the auction, it should be at least noted it's a fake.
Nothing will get you dead quicker than being deadly serious about yourself.
There's a crucial difference between say, firearms auctions and fake Tiffany auctions.
The difference is that a gun auction is easily identified and easily handled. An auction for a Tiffany item doesn't represent, at it's face, a reason to take action.
For eBay to take _fair_ action against a seller, there must be some sort of evidence offered that the item is, indeed, fake. And who better to make that determination than the people who actually make the product that is allegedly being faked.
The difference is that a gun auction is easily identified and easily handled. An auction for a Tiffany item doesn't represent, at it's face, a reason to take action.
For eBay to take _fair_ action against a seller, there must be some sort of evidence offered that the item is, indeed, fake. And who better to make that determination than the people who actually make the product that is allegedly being faked.
-
shinynewtoy
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 7:46 pm
...which is where Ric does a good job handling their knockoffs, but fortunately for JH and the boys there isn't the volume of them on at any given time than there might be in the case of, say, Tiffany's or Rolex or the like. Companies like these would need to hire a full-time department to watch, report, and remove these auctions. Huge task, but if you're concerned as a corporation about keeping the available pool pure it's an investment in your product.
What do you mean the Bass is too loud???
-
jeff_ulmer
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:00 am
- Contact:
It would be nice to peruse eBay for DVDs and not have to wade through 2000 bootlegs to find a legit copy, or get lost in that 2000 trying to sell a legit copy. eBay can't just claim something is a fake just because they think it is. Without knowing the trademark status or licensing arrangements, it is guesswork. However, if eBay is notified by the owner of the trademark or copyright, then enforcement becomes easier. It is still a monumental task.
Why should companies have to spend money to police the selling of fakes on eBay, when eBay is profiting from their loss, and doing nothing to stop it? File sharing companies who have allowed free downloading of copyrighted material, even if they have not actively partaken in such actions themselves, are currently in courts worldwide for failing to stop such activity. Why should eBay be any different?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left.
There's something here in the US called "common carrier status" for telephone companies. Basically, it absolves the infrastructure provider of culpability when bad guys do bad things using the infrastructure.
In other words you can't blame the phone company for inventing telecommunications and implementing a network when bank robbers use phones to make their plans.
File sharing software development companies have tried and in my opinion should have won common carrier type status - they can't really be held responsible for how their stuff is used. All they did was stick a (hopefully) pretty interface on top of some internet protocols, especially when you can use that software and the network and protocols for finding non-copyrighted stuff, too.
You don't blame the parking lot owner when people sell stolen good out of a parked van, nor do you blame Ford or GM for manufacturing the van.
Ebay wasn't designed to explicitly sell bogus counterfeit goods (which is the argument that won the non-common carrier status court fight a few months ago against the file sharing software company) so why should they be punished? It is up to the ™ holder to defend the trademark.
In other words you can't blame the phone company for inventing telecommunications and implementing a network when bank robbers use phones to make their plans.
File sharing software development companies have tried and in my opinion should have won common carrier type status - they can't really be held responsible for how their stuff is used. All they did was stick a (hopefully) pretty interface on top of some internet protocols, especially when you can use that software and the network and protocols for finding non-copyrighted stuff, too.
You don't blame the parking lot owner when people sell stolen good out of a parked van, nor do you blame Ford or GM for manufacturing the van.
Ebay wasn't designed to explicitly sell bogus counterfeit goods (which is the argument that won the non-common carrier status court fight a few months ago against the file sharing software company) so why should they be punished? It is up to the ™ holder to defend the trademark.
Listen to that sustain!
