Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Fined $61M By French Court For Sales of Fake Goods
A court in France ordered eBay to pay more than 61 mega-dollars to the parent company (LVMH) of Givenchy, Fendi, Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton, because a user sold fake goods on the website. eBay has been sued by other 'luxury goods' vendors (such as Tiffany's (US), Rolex (Germany) and L'Oreal (EU)). Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.' Others have complained that eBay is too slow to take down claims. Apparently eBay was hit with two violations: 1) eBay illegally allowed legitimately purchased and owned products made by LVMH to be resold on its website by 3rd parties not under the control of LVMH, and 2) not doing enough to protect LVMH's brands from illegal sales. eBay has said it will appeal. So eBay is to know what products every company allows to be sold before allowing them to on auction?
(There's also coverage at Yahoo News.)
Update: 07/01 17:15 GMT by T : That's LVMH throughout, rather than LVHM, as originally rendered.
Want to resell your Corrola? Sorry, you have to get Toyota's permission first.
Want to resell your house? Not unless the original builder says okay!
Want to sell your soul? Well, that one you can do. Just become a French judge!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Does France not have anything along the lines of the 'first sale' doctrine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
A++ douchebags, would sue again.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
When the hell did that become any sort of standard?
IIRC, Americans enjoy the right to sell any of their possessions, provided they acquired them legally.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Let them have fun playing with themselves.
Things like this show how far behind the times France has gotten.
At some point they even wanted to have French established as the official language of the EU...
Protectionism has never worked to any countries favour, France probably least of all.
Did you know that business meetings in France have to be in French ?
MP3 Search Engine
Is that one up version of the super dollar.
And yes, I know its technically correct but it's also ultra-geek even by slashdot standards.
Why can't we resell what we want?
Getting fined that much would make it much more profitable to just block all customer in France.
Megadollars? Seriously? I mean, I know this is news for nerds and all, but come now.
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
It doesn't matter that the term is enclosed in quotes in the submission. We're talking about trademarks here. If these companies don't take action regarding this they will be allowing their trademarks to be diluted, making them more and more difficult to defend.
This has nothing to do with IP.
Any defendant in court for trademark infringement can bring up the fact that the plaintiff is allowing eBay to sell thousands of cheap imitations. And they would win the case based on that, probably.
Trademark law pretty much requires things like these be done, and the companies have no choice but to go after the entity facilitating the sales.
It's not nice, but that's what it is.
This would get laughed out of court in the United States.
First Sale doctrine.
God Bless America!
The important change is in the liability section:
.
This is not the first time that French courts show a complete misunderstanding of how the Internet works... And this goes even further than net economics.
Most french used cars are still sold via a single newspaper called "La Centrale des Particuliers". Should this newspaper verify that each car is rightfully owned by its seller ? I cannot imagine any judge trying to enforce this...
Hopefully, this judgment shall be broken by the "Cour de Cassation", because it does not make any sense. Maybe the judge was only trying to get some publicity. This happens a lot,
While it is VERY silly to expect EBay to prevent all counterfeit items AND that whole resale of trademarked items is scary, it might point out a flaw in their business model. Consider a "consignment" store or pawn shop that takes a cut of each sale and is stocked with stolen and fake items. Eventually, if you have enough of this nonsense, I think it is fair to consider that store a fence and not a legitimate business.
The more EBay takes a "cut" of each sale, the more they become part of the transaction. Perhaps a flat fee. I am sure EBay wants to make as much profit as possible, but if they become a party to each transaction they can't help but take on some liability.
eBay, while not a friend of mine, is a great tool to ascertain value in various markets. I use eBay daily to judge pricing for items I want to buy, or items I may wish to sell, notably collectibles (I hate collectibles, but own some). eBay's overhead is always passed on to sellers.
When eBay gets hit with a judgment for allowing someone else to sell a product, that judgment will only be passed on to sellers in the future. $60m is not a big figure, and considering that eBay lists hundreds of millions of items annually, the cost to offset this judgment as passed on to sellers is less than a penny per item. Not a huge cost to eBay.
The trademark holders are the ones who have a lot to fear, though, which is why they're going after eBay in friendly jurisdictions. I've seen some knockoff items sold online, and they're fairly good, and in some cases better quality, than the originals. With the coming economic recession, I'm sure many previous buyers of the overpriced consumer goods are likely pulling out of buying new products, so the trademark holders need these judgments collected just to keep their heads above water.
eBay should fight this, strongly, because they are merely a middle man, and they do offer the ability of a company to pull auctions if they're deemed illicit or illegal. Yes, eBay is probably slow on pulling every auction, but the fact that the market shows a demand for a given product, even a knock-off, means that the market isn't going away. Surely it will only hurt the trademark holders more when the news media tells consumers that knock-off products are so readily available and so cheap.
Good luck, eBay, I hope you win the appeal. If not, you'll just pass the cost on to sellers, and no one will be concerned a year or two from now.
Sounds like a perfect excuse for the French to stop paying sales tax. If the item doesn't actually belong to you, why should you be responsible for paying for it?
Oh, and I think LVHM might want to explain to government why they've been hiding at least $61M of their property from the tax authorities.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Before everyone gets on their high horses about this, remember:
1) French companies sued mainly because fake goods were sold on eBay. Selling fake stuff (anywhere, on the net and off) is a big problem for French luxury companies.
2) French companies also sued to prevent people selling real luxury goods at cut prices. This is abusive since it criminalizes legal owners and sellers in order to protect their 'official' resellers. However, eBay has appealed and I am pretty certain this will be struck down by the French courts.
Finally, of course, this leaves the problem of certifying that, let's say a Chanel bag, is the real thing on eBay and not a fake. This could be helped by supplying some sort of authenticity voucher that sellers could produce if asked by eBay.
That would solve the problem: eBay could simply say to a seller "please show us the voucher that says this is the genuine article or pull your offer". Yes, I know, what's to say the seller is not going to produce a fake voucher, but still.
The thing with France right now is that they are trying to combine two things: e-commerce and checking that articles sold are genuine. Not an easy thing to pull off, and these fscking French companies are not taking the right path (suing instead of cooperating). Then again, maybe eBay just refused to cooperate, and they thought suing was the easiest way to obtain results and a more cooperative eBay.
So - as strange as it may seem right now - this could have a positive impact on the quality of eBay auctions. Think about it for a moment, before posting stupid French jokes.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
This appears to be yet more LVMH shenanigans. They want their products to only be available through their retail network and attack any perceived affront to the brand. It's not the first time they use the courts to try to get their way.
Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
I bought a "Sony" Memory Stick Pro Duo 8GB from ebay the other week.
It's a fake. Annoyed the hell out of me. It works and is 8GB but it's slow as hell.
Unfortunately I can't find a way to raise a dispute on ebay except "contact the seller", and when I try that it says the seller is no longer a member of ebay...
So yeah, it would be nice to have some assurance that what I'm buying is the real thing.
(I agree that this ruling is ridiculous if it allows companies to control resale of their goods, but getting counterfeits off ebay is worthwhile).
While I am not certain of the law (especially internationally), if you purchase counterfeit goods without knowing they're counterfeit, you have committed no crime and thus acquired them legally. Of course, once they're recognized as counterfeit, the police are within their obligation to seize them. I don't think the person who purchased the goods, barring some complicity, would be in any trouble.
Slashlawyers?
Have a nice day.
Defective Logic
Summary calls it LVHM, but the company website AND both news stories call it LVMH.
http://www.lvmh.com/
At the very least if you are going to capitalize the company reference multiple times throughout the article, please work on getting the 4 letters in the correct order..
far...out
And expect fees to increase.
They'll pass it on to the sellers.
First sale doctrine doesn't hold anymore?
Hey, this is great, you know, from now on I can dictate to my employer that he may not resell my work...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The seller should be held accountable not the site he sold stuff at.
I don't think that's accurate. I beleive, that even if the articles in question are fake, if they are represented as real, that is sufficient for trademark protection. In other words, the company is under the impression that this is a resale of legitimate goods, and so does not seek to protect their trademark. If the goods were obviously fake, and obviously not from the stated manufacturer, that would be different (I think)
Again, I think you'd have to demonstrate that the company was aware that these were knockoffs and not just resales. Without that, they simply say "we thought they were reselling our stuff" and win your case without a fight.
Uh, I think. Maybe...
LVHM has made their brand worthless and their products $0 in value, since their customers can only give away their used LVHM merchandise.
What is the point paying premium when homeless are going to be having it also? LVHM, the homeless brand of the future :-)
Cisco will be next on the bandwagon. They've been trying to stop second-hand sales of their equipment for years.
Could somebody please just disconnect France from the internet!?
eBay does let a lot of counterfeit and bootlegged products sell and they never seemed too concerned about removing them. I tried an experiment where I reported about 40 obviously bootlegged DVDs, and a few sellers who deal heavily in them. A few days later, not one auction pulled, not one user banned.
Until they get sued, they don't have a fiscal reason to pull an auction of bootlegs.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Idea for a line of CafePress objects: "Not Louis Vuitton; but at least I fucking own it." (replace with other LVHM brands as appropriate)
Crude snark aside, I wonder if, in the long term, this sort of thing will reduce the cachet associated with these sorts of brands? The marketing of luxury stuff is heavy on invocations of status, and ownership, and quasi-aristocratic tradition. None of these things are even remotely compatible with goods that are considered to be controlled by the "IP rights-holder" forever and ever and ever. Quite the opposite in fact. The same phenomenon is interesting to note with home videos, which we are constantly being told to "add to our collection" or "own it on DVD" despite the fact that the producers of such things generally strongly assert the "licenced not sold" position. Luxury brands are a more dramatic example; being more expensive and more closely tied to a perception of a sort of premarket or nonmarket ideal of privilege. It would seem to me that goods commissioned and created for you personally or even purely generic goods that you actually own are both much closer to what luxury brands pretend to be than those luxury brands are.
So far, it seems that a generous dose of marketing has resolved this little dissonance; but it is perhaps the most serious structural weakness behind the notion of luxury branding. In an ideal world, this would be a nice point of attack for notions of value and quality based on individual and unique artistic creations, and the social and economic structures they involve. I'm not particularly optimistic about this happening, given that people seem to have ignored the transformation of traditional luxury brands into branded, mass-market, commodity items; but it is an interesting possibility.
Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.'
Do the French have some sort of equivalent to the first sale doctrine ruling?
Please help metamoderate.
...whether or not e-bay should be considered a "courtier" (broker), with the legal obligations attached to it, among which the verification of the legality of the goods.
E-bay position is that they are just a website which helps people connecting together with no strings attached, the court position is that e-bay should be considered a courtier (a legal entity running auctions) with the rights and obligations attached.
Whether this is a good decision or not is an other issue, but at least, in some french articles, such as http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2008/07/01/ebay-est-condamne-par-le-tribunal-de-commerce-de-paris-a-verser-38-millions-d-euros-a-lvmh_1064965_3234.html, this is much clearer.
That should clarify it for some of the trolls...
We all know what it means, and that's the only solution necessary. Don't buy a Rolex off of eBay. If you do, then "caveat emptor".
No French jokes, stupid or otherwise, but I will say this. France is derided as being overly protectionist, and it's hard not to think this is more proof of the same. I'm sure that, given time and resources, we could find a silver lining in any cloud, but that doesn't make bad policy good policy.
The French government and courts have a long history of issuing prejudiced laws and decisions in favor of French companies (especially in cases where the opposition are American or British companies), but this is disturbing even by their standards.
As opposed to how the US does things? C'mon.
Please help metamoderate.
but only because they set the precedent... Ebay is constantly pulling auctions with little or no warning from people based on companies asking them too without really looking into "why". In some cases it's very legitimate, like say Blizzard not wanting people to sell their WoW accounts and so they work with Ebay to pull them down. On the other hand it can be something we see as silly as the case of LVHM not wanting their products sold by 3rd parties.
Name Brand, Designer items are expensive because their is a name and a service associated with them that can only be consistently offered if the company has a limited distribution channel it can accurately monitor. For example: I purchased a Louis Vuitton purse and matching wallet for my wife for a ridiculous amount of money. When I purchased it at the LV store they took my name, her name and a lot of other info. Now we've relocated three times since then (4 years later) and we can still go into any LV store to have the purse cleaned and treated for free just by giving them our names and info. Luxury items are not just expensive for the sake of being expensive, their is a service and expectation that comes with having them, otherwise there would be no difference between JC Penny and Coach.
Ave Molech Setting
The problem is the merchandise is counterfeit!
Yes, of course an individual has every right to sell their own merchandise, but when criminals attempt to sell counterfeit items it's also a (good) companies prerogative to thwart common crooks from stealing their property. Ebay should implement a credit check. This wouldn't solve the problem but it sure would help. I don't want to buy fake goods any more than I want to buy stolen goods from an 18 year old who stole jewlery from her grandmother so she could get drunk and high all weekend. Chances are with either situation, their credit is extremly poor.
I want to be retired when I grow up.
Considering how often eBay gets sued in French courts, eBay management might want to consider doing a cost-benefit analysis of doing business in France in the first place. I'm not jumping on the knee-jerk anti-French bandwagon here -- it's their country, and they can run it any damn way they please -- but from a purely practical business standpoint, the barrage of lawsuits in the French market would give me pause, personally, if I was on the eBay board.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I've always thought that the companies that sell this uberexpensive products are also behind the production and selling of their pirate counterparts. Think about it, its 2 different markets. People who want the real thing and have the money won't settle for the pirate ones. "Normal" people who know the original products are a ripoff will never buy the original product. Both markets will always exist, no matter what, so why not take advantage of it and earn from both. So either the big fancy companies are behind pirated stuff ... or they should be.
I understand forgeries, as it could tarnish the brand names. But for legit items let them resell them.
You are right of course but eBay's problem is that eBay cannot be bothered to seriously check. The ONLY way to be reasonably sure an item is not a fake is to inspect it in person and have a full documentation trail detailing who bought it, where they bought it, and when. This is what they do in the art world to authenticate pieces. Since eBay never physically inspects ANY merchandise sold on their site, there is no way they can possible determine if an item is a fake.
From my own experience I've sold some high end luxury goods on consignment through eBay. (Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Rolex, etc) In each case I had a full documentation trail, the parties were known to me or my close associates, and we had the items physically inspected by an expert in that merchandise to ensure authenticity. Through eBay's VeRO program we were accused several times of pedaling fakes even though we had the real thing. There was no opportunity for us to prove that we had authentic merchandise though we certainly could have done so were there any means to plead our case. Our auctions were summarily taken down and we were given strikes with no recourse of any kind. To be sure there are a TON of actual fakes on eBay but eBay sure as hell can't tell the difference. Worse, to avoid lawsuits they've given brand holders full power to remove auctions that they should have no power to influence under the first sale doctrine.
The problem is that eBay's incentives are all wrong - they just want their fees and no lawsuits - and they've handed responsibility (through VeRO) to trademark and brand holders whose incentives actually contradict the law. Louis Vuitton doesn't want ANY of their products sold via eBay regardless of authenticity. So eBay users get screwed in the deal either way. Sellers can have their auctions pulled for no good reason and buyers can't be reasonably sure of authentic products because eBay refuses to check. The winners here are definitely not you and me.
France isn't the only place where companies are overly-aggressive in protecting their brands.
I work for an ISP in the UK, and we have recently been caught in the middle of a fight between one of the web sites we host and a product manufacturer in the US.
Out of the blue, our staff started getting personal and very aggressive calls from the lawyers of said company, demanding that we take the site offline immediately.
The reason? The site included text where the owner stated that he used the company's products and would recommend it.
We contacted the site owner and persuaded him (with some difficulty) to remove references to the product on his site. But that didn't help -- the lawyers continued to hassle us, because the site still contained certain quite generic words, which they claimed the company owned trademarks on in the context of their industry.
Since the site owner was not a registered distributor of said product, the company was therefore within its rights to prevent him using either the product name or any of their registered keywords.
Frankly, some of the keywords are so generic that it would be hard to talk about any product in their market without using one or more of them, but that's what they're claiming.
Personal opinion: The company's claims are stretching credibility, and their actions somewhat bizarre given that they're trying to shut down a site that is recommending them, but the lawyers aren't interested in that; they're interested in how much money they can make from the company by finding obscure site owners to sue. As for the company themselves, it's clear that their primary motivation is to enforce their supply lines and prevent unauthorised distribution. They've decided that's the best way to make money from their product, so they will go out of their way to enforce it using whatever laws they can find to do so. In this case, they're using American laws, but I'm sure they'd have used British or EU laws if they'd been more suited to their aims.
Generally speaking, the laws will have been created for good reasons, but the bottom line here is that whatever laws are in place, companies and their lawyers will find ways to turn them to their advantage.
Does France not have anything along the lines of the 'first sale' doctrine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Louis Vuitton and the others are trying to apply a EULA to their products. Just as software companies have done.
Both groups want you to buy directly from them or their distributors. The less second-hand handbags available for sale, the more likely you'll buy theirs.
It will be interesting to see what Brussels has to say about this.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The summary gleefully mixes the "actual" reason for the luxury companies to sue, and the actual judgement. Of course you have to read the one-page Yahoo summary to know that. Yes it is in English.
eBay has been comdemned for allowing people sell counterfeit goods. They have been a vector for the auctions, they take a share of the benefits... The courts found them guilty. They would do that for a fence too. Even in airports there is advertisement telling me I will pay my whole life for importing counterfeit goods. At least they are consistent there.
What the summary meant in (1) is that LVMH and Co actually sued because people are selling their overpriced goods for cheap on eBay. Counterfeited or not. This is probably true. Still in France I can sell stuff I buy from LVMH, as soon as I buy it it is mine (first sale doctrine ?).
eBay is annoying them, eBay is also "guilty" of allowing improper behaviour for some transactions. If you annoy someone powerful make sure you are clean. Common sense that eBay forgot.
As an aside, summary mentions that another company suing is US-based, so much for the French-bashing crowd. RTFS anyone ?
I was sold a fake Kingston elite pro SD card. Those are one of the few SD cards with SLC Flash memory, 100.000 write/erase cycles. So, I was pretty adamant I wanted the real "elite pro", but got a forgery, which was visible from the very poor quality of print on the label as well as the packaging. Also, I had a few originals I could compare against. Finally, the cards failed to pass a few tests I threw at them, so I was adamant I wanted my money back. I notified eBay, but they never did a damned thing about this case.
I hope $60+ million will make eBay listen to their buying customers (not only their bigger sellers), when they report a forged item.
And forged memory cards and flash drives are massively present on eBay. If it's from China, Hong Kong or Australia, it's almost certainly a fake.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
OH my GOD a FRANCE is INVOLVED!!! QUICK, hate speech!!! GO USA!!!!!
Why not sue MasterCard for paying for the counterfit handbags?
It's really a disturbing trend to go after the middle-man rather than the actual criminal (though I shudder to think that someone selling their handbag is criminal because they are not an authorized reseller).
It's one thing if you can show facilitation: that e-bay knowingly had fake goods up. It's another thing to demand that ebay be able to authenticate everything a private seller offers.
You could have sued Ebay too...
Not really. At the time I was making a significant part of my income selling stuff on eBay. Suing them would have been cutting off my nose despite my face. Not to mention that I do not have the money to fight a multi-billion dollar corporation over the loss of a few hundred dollars in listing fees and lost sales. Plus even if I won (which I wouldn't) the damages I could collect would be insufficient to seriously cause eBay to change practices anyway. Only real hope of that would be some sort of a class action lawsuit.
In the end the right solution was just to stop selling on eBay. I used to send close to $100,000 a year in fees to eBay/PayPal. Now they get $0.00 from me so I think that hurts eBay more than any lawsuit I could possibly have been involved in.
A quick trip to Wikipedia shows that eBay is based in San Jose, California. I didn't know San Jose was part of France.
Seriously, how will the French government enforce this ruling? eBay is an American company operating over the Internet. They could just say "sorry, we're not paying" and the French government will be left scratching their heads.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
"The Rolex trademark recordation with Customs indicates "Import of Goods Bearing Genuine Trademarks or Trade Names Restricted." This means that genuine Rolex products can only be imported with the permission of the trademark owner, Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. A private individual can hand carry one Rolex watch from a trip overseas without obtaining permission. Bring in more than one, and they will all be seized as a trademark violation. Purchasing a Rolex from overseas by mail is also a trademark violation." Title 19 U.S.C. 1526(a) and (b)
Buy a legitimate Rolex from a foreign seller on eBay and try having it sent to you, and see how your tune changes.
so are they going to sue the city of new york for allowing fake handbags to be sold?
"If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
First off, I doubt very much if France has anything like a "first sale" doctrine. So trying to argue something based on that is pointless in a French court.
The real problem is the grey market. Should you be able to buy a printer, computer, camera or handbag from a reseller that isn't authorized by the manufacturer? In many cases the stuff you are buying seems to have fallen off the back of a truck on its way to an "authorized" reseller which accounts for the deep discount you are getting on the grey market. Other times it is through less clearly criminal channels but are still unauthorized. The primary problem is one of trying to maintain a price point for products and the only way to do that today is through an authorized reseller program.
So going around it often gets the buyer the same product without a warranty the manufacturer will stand behind. It also creates a race-to-the-bottom situation where it can easily get out of hand with authorized resellers no longer able to sell the product because the price point has eroded. With Apple computers and many cameras this turns into a real problem because through the grey market there is no customer service. A first-time buyer attracted by the price ends up with an unusable product and a bad experience.
The obvious benefit for the buyer that doesn't want or need any customer service or warranty is a lower price. Unfortunately for the manufacturer the authorized resellers don't have a sustainable business at the lower price. Usually this is because of low volume. There doesn't seem to be a good solution that allows the selling at lower prices as well as the authorized resellers that can provide customer service.
The "Internet solution" seems to be screw the customer service, just give me lower prices! And clearly that is where we are heading where the lower price via some price-collecting tool is the only thing tool available to consumers. They can compare lower prices and see they are getting screwed by quality resellers, thus driving them out of business. This leaves the fly-by-night operators like the New York electronics merchants to sell everything at the lowest possible prices - no matter how often they try to cheat their customers. You see, a low price doesn't necessarily always win out. But today on the Internet all you have are low prices and zero customer service.
I think the "arrogant asshole" term applies far more to yourself.
If you can't afford the Rolex, it's because you haven't made the money to do it. Don't hate people who are wealthier than you are, simply for having more money. If you must hate someone, hate yourself for being the kind of loser who would dub ANYONE who owns a Rolex an "arrogant asshole".
If you had any kind of self-respect, you'd at least have posted this under "anonymous coward".
P.S. I make $25'000/year at the moment, and I am unlikely to purchase a Rolex for MANY years to come.
This has made me think for the first time about the economics of this. This price-fixing practice (our goods can only be sold through our official channels) of luxury goods reveals their shambolic nature IMO.
Brand is an important concept and should be protected, as it is effectively a business' reputation.
However luxury goods go further. The brand name is meant to represent very high cultural value or exclusivity, without any real reference to tangible qualities of the product. And they certainly aren't exclusive; anybody with some dollar can buy their way into that special club.
Admittedly I'm sure superior raw materials are used and the products are hardly shoddy, but the price does not reflect these basics.
Place luxury goods on the free market and we'll see what they're really worth!
EBay tries to avoid any responsibility with anything just like any responsible business would. However, that doesn't change the fact that eBay is a huge facilitator of criminal activity.
If eBay were non-profit and just had servers up, that may make them less evil, but in this case, for every fake handbag or nike shoe sold, eBay gets the listing fees and final value fees and paypal fees. It is in eBay's best interest to suck at monitoring their listings as much as corporately possible. Which is exactly what they do. How fast do you think they move when someone tries to sell a child? And most listings are APPROVED before they are listed. Why do you think it takes hours for them to appear in search results? They are deliberately turning a blind eye.
If eBay stuck to their original motto that they don't even look at listings and it's all just the users acting on their own, they may have had a stronger defense. But they couldn't keep that up for obvious reasons, and now that they claim they check listings, LVMH and everyone else have quite strong arguments against the legitimacy of how ebay conducts their business and profits from what they themselves admit to be a problem.
Regarding sales of legitimate LVMH, I don't think the judge is changing the law, or creating a special case here. He is merely punishing eBay as per LVMH's request, and it serves them right. The judge was obviously moved by the severity of the situation.
Ebay also used to have a Japanese site, but they pulled out pretty quickly because they couldn't sustain a legitimate lawful business in a country that has a low tolerance for counterfeit and fraud. That is saying something.
French courts are the joke of the world. It used to be US courts allowing the RIAA to make mockery of justice in them, but the French courts are worse still. Of course, having to deal with French laws like the restrictions on Free Speech that Bridget Bardot has run afoul of on multiple occasions don't help, but in the end it's the French courts that actually try to enforce this absurdness.
Of course their hatred for everything American doesn't help Google's case either.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think what these companies are most concerned about is the erosion of their brand as providing positional goods, or goods that carry social status. Selling of both the originals and fakes through eBay and other mass-market venues starts to dull some of the lustre associated with these 'exclusive' brands.
Isn't this what the Goblins tell the Humans in Harry Potter 7? You've never actually "owned" anything goblin-made. Here the USA's Doctirne of First Sale is clearly an improvement over the French mess. With garbage like this going on, not to mention the stranglehold the Unions have over French employment it's a wonder anyone has ever wanted to conquer them in the first place -- or save them from it afterwards.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Film at eleven.
Ebay is fined for selling and taking commissions on the sale of fake goods. Surely that makes sense? Ah wait, France was right on Iraq. Let's insult them!
If you have to legislate the use of your language, isn't that just an admission that it ain't that great?
In English, we just take words from anywhere. Nobody makes us speak it. We don't see it as "polluted" by having French, Greek, Latin, Germanic or any other sort of words in it. It makes it "rich" and "interesting".
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Why do business in France?
Perhaps there are countries in the world that put businesses in their place. That is, they don't let businesses lord over the country as with post-1980 US.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The last time I was in NYC and the only time I was in Tokyo, I saw lots of imitation goods for sale on the street. If the companies can sue eBay for somebody selling these goods, what is different about suing a major city if somebody is selling the goods on the street? Is this the next step?
Stop making it in countries that are known to harbor counterfeit manufacturers. That is, about any country they're made in now except for the EU and the US.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Its funny to see the VERO program criticised for being too strict, as I'm sure given ebays incompetence, it can sometimes be.
My experience with VERO is that it is useless to actually do anything about blatantly stolen property (in other words, people duplicating full versions of games on a CD burner, and openly selling them on ebay). In cases like this, ebay are VERY VERY slow to respond, and take no serious action against the sellers, sometimes removing a listing, rarely banning an account (new account takes a few hours).
For smaller IP holders like me, ebay and google are both unresponsive, disinterested bastards. Try getting pirated content removed from a blogger blog, for example...
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
You NEVER own anything in a socialist state. That's why you get these whacked out rulings in countries like this, they have no real sense of ownership.
Who are you to say I can't sell something I bought on a public market? I don't recall agreeing to that when buying my overpriced coach crap. I own it, I can do what I want with it.
An American capitalist society is not compatible with a socialist mess like France. We should unplug them from OUR internet and let them enjoy their perfume and surrendering.
I can see the parents point, though. There is something fundamentally annoying about the "I Am Rich" bling, especially the stuff that really isn't much better than average priced stuff, but only exists as a very expensive brand name. Showing off your wealth (for the sake of showing it off) is at least crass, if not arrogant.
I personally don't have anything against people with more money than me, but I really dislike people who have to constantly make it known that they have more money than me.
Idiotic status symbols are pointless, and obnoxious. Are the wealthy REALLY that insecure feeling, that they must constantly point out that they can throw a grand at a stupid wrist watch with all the functionality and quality of my $50 Timex?
My Dad, on a recent trip to China, bought a Vacheron Constantin knock off (of a $25,000 watch), that has been appraised as genuine. It was $25. This leads me to the conclusion that its value ONLY exists as the brand name, and nothing else. This seems rather silly to me.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I once bought a hydration system that is claiming to be 'Camelback' brand on the header line, but when it arrived it was 'High Sierra' brand. The thing leaked from the start. The description was rather deceptive, so I filed complaint to eBay, who ruled against me. So I contacted the Camelback about the trademark infringement. In less than 2 weeks, I got a 'replacement' hydration pack as a thanks from their legal department who promised to follow up on it. It took a while but eventually the scumbag eBay seller is not using the brand name any more, and he disappeared altogether.
I'm sure everyone caught it, but for yet more emphasis:
1) eBay illegally allowed legitimately purchased and owned products made by LVMH to be resold on its website by 3rd parties not under the control of LVMH, and 2) not doing enough to protect LVMH's brands from illegal sales
LVMH can tell their retailers how to sell the products, as they have a direct contractual relationship. They CANNOT tell the end-user, or anyone else beyond that first hop, what to do with it, what to charge for it, or which orifice to insert it. There's no licensing agreement, you don't have to sign a 2-page contract in order to buy a stupid shiny watch or pink bag. There's no LVMH auditor that comes to your dressing room and checks your papers every time you spritz on a bit of Eau-de-Poopoo.
Next point: illegal sales (counterfeit items). Ebay does not handle the actual items. Ebay does not have omniscience and superman laser vision. Ebay has no way to even guess that a seller is peddling fakes. In many cases, even the end-user can't tell the fake from the original (which says a lot about how cheap the real one is!). With the intrinsic right of resale, you can't outlaw resale, so the guy selling fakes is indistinguishable from a reseller (well, except for his plentiful stock, delivered every week from Singapore)
The fact that a French court actually upheld this ridicule tells me Ebay should withdraw its services from France, along with all its subsidiaries and sister companies. If France wants to be hostile toward online businesses, then they're more than welcome to do without. Some smaller, skeevier company will fill in the void, until they get burned as well. The French government is a mockery, and everyone has the freedom to stand at their border, point, and laugh.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The group is called LVMH, not LVHM. Fyi.
I forgot the original language, but it went something like:
An ambitious person compares herself to people above her, and arrogant person -- to those below.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
What's especially stupid about this is that if LV winds up forcing eBay out of this category, 100 new markets will open up. This has already started with the counterfeit sellers who have been forced off of eBay.
Example: You can't buy a gun on eBay. I think it was after Columbine that eBay voluntarily exited the gun category. Since then there are a bunch of auction sites specifically for guns.
By keeping one big market, it will be far easier for LV, Tiffany, and others to manage the counterfit & legit gray market. This is basically another example of an old company failing to understand online commerce.
Take off every 'sig' for great justice.
You are aware of the difference between a law that actually exists and "something people want"?
Because your knee-jerk defense of a silly French policy by way of a partisan attack makes it seem like you do not know the difference.
You are guilty. You claim "Business meetings do not have to be held in French in France", yet provide no citation that supports you. That made me skeptical, so I dug further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France
"The French government does not regulate the choice of language in publications by individuals but the use of French is required by law in commercial and workplace communications."
It appears your own ignorance has made you post facts that lack accuracy.
Just don't let the French use your websites. We'll see if their stupid laws change once they can't use google, youtube, ebay, and most of the other cool websites.
So, is that process like, a sentence in English followed by a sentence in French, or is it all done in one language then the other, or what exactly? I can't see how I would stay in a meeting that had already presented the information to me in my native language. I'd probably just leave after the English portion (or alternately, the French if that were my native language).
I think the "arrogant asshole" term applies far more to yourself.
Whoa. Take it easy, it was a joke. Geez...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I heard France just issued that all of the street vendors in New York selling cheap knock offs need to pay up as well. And that they are currently the France court is trying to me John and Jenny Smith of New Jersey to pay up because they sold an old Marc Jacobs handbag at their yard sale. Come on this is a public auction site, not a retail site. This case should have been thrown out.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
anything that hurts ebay/paypal makes me happy. I was a victim of an scam and pay did an "investigation" which consisted of an immediate and automated response telling me basically to go pound sand. i closed my accounts and never looked back and am happier for it. Anything that contributes to the downfall of these thieves sounds good to me.
Yes, however it does not say "not for individual re-sale". So your point falls apart there. This is, of course, outside of the fact that your example is labeled that way for nutritional reasons, nothing more.
More importantly, and I suspect you know this, onerous contracts are illegal. Without a specific legal ruling stating that a contract can restrict me from reselling my property, I have to call shenanigans on your speculation.
A court in France ordered the Curch of Mose to pay more than 61 mega-dollars to the parent company of all atheists, FSM, because a bishop sold fake gods in his church. Christ Inc. has been sued by other 'imaginary gods' vendors. Problems stem from some companies demanding that their beliefs (even legal bullshit) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.'
The subtlety that the French law turns on, I believe who owns the name of the object. It's complete caca, but but is an important distinction. If someone resold LVMH's toilet water as 'toilet water' (no label), then there would be no issue. It's when you use the name on the product.
I'm not sure how else you refer to an item without using its name. But having rules about language -- who may say what (some countries have official bodies to rule on grammar and word usage! ;^/ ). But I think part of the problem is most that Americans don't know how to finesse the French Court system. A plaintiff needs to engage a judge (in France) into *wanting* to help them to provide a solution. It's not strictly about fine points of law.
I suspect French companies are uniformly better at this than US entities/companies. An adversarial system is a poor way at achieving a just, fair or equitable solution. It's one of the worst -- as it hinges on who "argues" better, and has little to do with the merits of either side of the issue. Thus, lawyers in the US are exalted above common sense -- solely because they argue a "stance" more effectively. This isn't "justice", it's a friggin debate game.
Furthermore -- I'm pretty sure that French courts don't have the same idea of "precedence" that US court verdicts carry. That may be changing under pressures from non-local (non-French, usually) plaintiffs. But that pressure has always existed. In a way, its more about who better convince the judge to take their side. Unless US companies start employing local lawyers of great skill *and* social standing, we'll likely continue to lose -- since the French don't respect the US-standard of whoever argues better is 'right'.
It makes compliance difficult -- and the easiest thing to for a US company to do? Don't do business in France. If the French people get to a point of feeling their system needs change, they will change it. But their system is in place to protect its local citizenry, first. International "rights", will almost always be (and maybe should always be) a secondary consideration. Otherwise, you've simply put your country and culture up for sale to the highest bidder (who hires the best arguer(s)).
eBay can appeal and win -- if they finesse the courts properly -- but it may take some time. Meanwhile, I'd suspend operations there or have people selling there agree to some French-approved conditions in order to be able to list products in France. That would hopefully protect one's but enough -- if one asked the French government for help in setting standards, and assuring that the standards are implementable such that the listing company is not held to blame for violations.
L.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422673041
The Yahoo blurb left that part out, which is where you got your misinformation from. So no, when you say "Still in France I can sell stuff I buy from LVMH, as soon as I buy it it is mine (first sale doctrine ?)" you are not correct.
I take it someone with mod points and no knowledge of France had a stick up his butt.
Look. I lived there for nearly 20 years. Some things are great about it, some things suck. But there are a couple of things that are critical to know if you want to have any chance at understanding how the French work:
- The state - and its bureaucracy - is the foundation of the nation.
- It's a country that is split along many lines.
- It's a country with a (self-defined) mission.
- It is conservative, but has a history of progressing through revolutions.
- Art and culture come first.
- Anglo-Saxon style survival of the fittest and invididualism is abhorred.
Pretty much everything follows from that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...which is just a poor man's version of *bucks.
that those things only applied to actual businesses. For example, I buy Windows. It says "illegal to resell". However, nothing is stopping me from using it, deciding I want to switch to Linux, and selling it for $20 to my friend Steve. I also hardly think that MS is going to come after me even if they know I'm doing it. Also, just as many courts (at least in the US) have a tendency to say that EULA's are NOT binding since no one reads them and you're usually not aware of it until AFTER the purchase, I see the same thing here - if you have to buy Windows and then once you're home you find out that it is illegal to resell, I'd bet that most courts would not uphold it since it wasn't clearly stated before the transaction was made.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
As far as fake control goes I don't see why none of them are talking about RFID... ie:
1) Manufacturers of goods subject to knockoffs insert RFID (probably already the case for some products)... adding RFID cost next to nothing considering these are luxury goods and the presence of such a device can be marketed as a security feature so the cost will easily be recouped
2) eBay requires that sellers of these goods obtain an RFID reader and include the data with the listing (which sits in limbo until step 3)... such a requirement on resellers of luxury goods is hardly onerous compared to the risk of tweaking TOS for all sellers
3) trademark owner verifies RFID scan as legit and listing is let out of limbo or seller is reported as fraudster
4) optionally, trademark owner restricts visibility of listing geographically based on location of seller to maintain some desired global distribution balance (scarcity management is the name of the game with luxury goods).
Cheap/easy/robust... what could possibly go wrong?
Captha 'stupid'... I really must stop posting AC and get an account as these are getting increasing hostile (or I'm getting increasingly stupid)
Please editor, check your facts. This is just too dumb, but...Rolex is Swiss!
They better start including end user license agreements with these purses if they expect to enforce any resale policies in the U.S. Only in France would this happen! So if eBay loses the appeal, do they go on the lamb in Canada? Looks like Mexico is their only option, which is nice since that puts them closer to the counterfeiters!
No it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law
Sorry, but you are wrong again, looks like you should have paid closer attention in school.
OH my GOD a FREEDOM is INVOLVED!!! QUICK, hate speech!!!
GO USA!!!!!
fixed
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
This one works pretty well too: "A fool and his money are soon parted."
Regarding sales of legitimate LVMH, I don't think the judge is changing the law, or creating a special case here. He is merely punishing eBay as per LVMH's request, and it serves them right. The judge was obviously moved by the severity of the situation.
Regardless of the merits of the rest of the case against eBay, the judge has no reason to find eBay *also* guilty of violating this absurd restriction if he's not explicitly rejecting the doctrine of first sale. If the judge isn't creating a precedent in France, then it simply means that French law is already restricting resale. Outside of France, on the Internet as a whole, this will have a chilling effect on legitimate resellers.
What part of "This ruling came down against eBay on two fronts. The court faulted the online company for "guilty negligence," for not doing enough to prevent fake goods from being sold on its site. The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the "illicit sale" of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands' "selective distribution networks."' did you not get?
Or this:
" High-end fashion companies like LVMH make their money by selling exclusive products, and fight a never-ending battle against cheap ripoffs and alleged affronts to their trademarks.
In an earlier instance of LVMH trying to protect its brands online, a Paris court in 2005 ordered Google to pay 200,000 euros (about $260,000 at the time) to Louis Vuitton for breach of trademark. In that case, Google had to stop displaying advertisements for Louis Vuitton's rivals when Web users typed Vuitton's name into the search engine." (also FTFA!) did you not get?
Or to keep it simple enough for maybe even you, drom the summary:"Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.'"
So yes, I ALSO tread on you, and if come back around I shall tread on you a second time!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Cutting off any sale of a used handbag would result in fewer new sales, because the people who had been buying then selling would stop AND the people who had been buying used couldn't afford to start buying new.
That logic doesn't work in the world of luxury goods and conspicuous consumption. With a luxury good a big part of the reason they sell for such high prices is specifically because there aren't many available and not many people can buy them. The more "exclusive" the higher the price can be. Selling more can actually hurt a luxury good manufacturer in many cases because it loses its value as a status symbol. It dilutes their image as an exclusive make and they can find demand dropping rapidly right along with their ability to command premium prices.
Yes cutting off secondary markets hurts sales volume but for a status brand that might not be a bad thing. Doesn't mean that these companies should be able to cut off our right to resell what we own but they have a very good reason to do what they do.
Also this one: "The Apple never falls far from the tree."
Heh, I bought a fake Rolex in China for about $10. It was a nice looking watch, but the mechanism inside broke after two weeks. I've seen other fakes where the plating rubs off or water gets in after a short time. Basically, you do get a much better quality product with the genuine item (with watches, not so much with clothing, etc), but not $25,000 better.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
And if you are from such a jurisdiction, then your use of our service is hereby unauthorized and subject to civil and criminal penaltiies under the laws of the United States and the State of California.
May God have mercy upon your soul if you sue us, asshat.
Flamebait? That was both funny and clever.
(Would you like fries with that?)
So does this mean that I have to return the Louis Vuitton walking stick that my father left me in his will because it was presented to him upon his retirement and none of us are authorized resellers for Louis Vuitton?
Just wondering if I will end up in a French prison.
Slashdot funny mods are pretty much hit and miss. Don't worry, lots of people still laugh even without modpoints.
Its amusing, one of the guys in my father's tour group runs a jewelery store in New York City, and actually opened it up, looked at it through a loup, etc... And said that it would be damn hard to actually tell the difference. He's had it for a good six months, and it still works/looks fine.
This is anecdotal, so grains of salt may be necessary.
But then again I had a pair of Prada loafer/moccasins that wore out in a month (overstock special at Neiman Marcus), and I know people who sprung for expensive name brand handbags that broke in weeks.
A lot of the "luxury" goods are cheaply manufactured Chinese products as well.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I suggest you lay off wikipedia and try to find the actual law in English (I think translations are posted somewhere). You will see that it does not apply to business meetings.
n/t
I suggest you read the link I posted, you'll find out that repeatedly saying "nu uh" doesn't make you correct.
No match here.
1) Asshole tries to whore karma points by using a tired, old, falsehood of an argument that he thinks he can use to justifiy his illegal activities, and gets modded 5, Insightful by fellow thieves. (yes, thieves)
2) gnick pwns asshole's post by pointing out the falsehood in the argument.
3) I point out that, even though the argument was shot down, asshole still retains Insightful mod for obviously regurgitating an analogy he doesn't even understand.
4) I get modded flamebait by fellow thieves in an attempt to hide the truth!!!
Well, my question has been answered: It seems like every thieving, liar, troll has mod points.
I can haz been pwned!! lolcats!!1one.
That's a fucking funny one!!
I did. Wikipedia is wrong on that point. Can I also point out the string of reply to that post on /. confirming you are wrong?
English text of the law: http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/droit/loi-gb.htm Article on business meetings: Article 6. - Any participant in an event, seminar or convention organised in France by natural persons or corporate bodies of French nationality has the right to express himself in French. Documents distributed to participants before and during the meeting for the presentation of the programme must be drafted in French and may include translations in one or more foreign languages. Where an event, seminar or convention involves the distribution of preparatory documents or work documents to participants, or the publication of proceedings or minutes of work sessions, the texts or papers presented in the foreign language must be accompanied by at least a summary in French. These provisions apply neither to events, seminars and conventions exclusively organised for foreigners, nor to events designed to promote France's foreign trade. Provision must be made for translation services when the events herein referred to are organised at the initiative of a public corporate body or private corporate body carrying out a public service assignment. No obligation to hold meetings in French.
If you spend $300k on a watch, sometimes you even get less functionality.
Yes, and it's linked from that Wikipedia article you've linked to.
Lots of luxury goods manufacturers choose to maintain an air of exclusivity about their products, isn't that up to them?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, I don't think that the companies have any right suing Ebay for that.. But I am very happy Ebay is being sued because of how bad their support is. I have been permanently banned from Ebay because I listed the same thing more than 10 times (I infact had about 15 copies of Adobe Photoshop (yes, legit) that I was trying to sell and they have a rule that I didn't know about that says you can't list more than 10 of the same item. Well, I guess Ebay believes that breaking that rule means you are worthy of a permanent ban. I can't register or make a new account! And when I try to contact them, they just give me the same BS "We cannot unban your account due to previous issues".
I just did this and I urge anyone else against this unfair company to do the same: Use their contact support form and rub this lawsuit in their faces! http://pages.ebay.com/help/newtoebay/about-support.html Then scroll down to this: Important: To send Customer Support email, you will need to be signed in to your eBay account. If you are unable to sign into your account, please use this link to contact us. I am an avid IT professional, and yes, this may seem a little bit immature, but Ebay is the most unfair company I have ever dealt with in my entire life and have cost me hundreds of dollars due to their unfair policies. So flame at me if you like ebay, you just haven't been scammed by them yet.