Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

Good points, all.

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?

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.

Look at it from a practical perspective.

There are millions of brands/trademarks. It would be impossible for a single company to effectively police all of the possible brand/trademark violations.

Not only would they not have the expertise to do so, it would also be cost prohibitive.

Ebay has already won a suit like this over fradulent autographs and found innocent. This is much the same.