WTF? 40 Million Euros?
Here is an extract from an article on Yahoo:
A Paris court on Monday ordered the online auctioneer eBay to pay 40 million euros (63 million dollars) in damages to Louis Vuitton for selling fake luxury goods online.
The commercial court ruled in favour of six LVMH brands which accused eBay of putting on sale fake handbags, clothes and other luxury goods and of illicit sales of perfumes in a case that began a year and a half ago.
eBay, the world's biggest online auctioneer, was ordered to pay 19.28 million euros to LVMH and 17.3 million euros to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to their brand images and causing moral harm.
It must also pay 3.25 million euros to four perfume brands -- Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain -- for sales in violation of its authorized network.
The court barred eBay, which said it will appeal against the ruling, from advertising the cosmetic or perfume brands on its website.
LVMH had argued that eBay had failed to do enough to prevent the sale of counterfeit copies of their goods and that it did not have legal permission to sell its authentic products.
WTF? 40 Million Euros?
PVC and Leather. A Chain and a feather
It sounds like the first step in outlawing perfume sales on ebay. I will be criminalized and driven into the underground
"illicit sales of perfumes" doesn't necessarily mean counterfeit perfumes...but interesting nevertheless. I don't know how French law works, but that would be appealed to death anywhere else, and the amount paid would be significantly less.
Get 'em cheap while you can
Anything that shafts ebay is fine by me.
LVMH was not just freakin' out over counterfeits- they stated that their perfumes could only be sold through outlets of their own designation. This means, to me, that eventually the goal is to clamp down on all secondary sellers, though how far they will go remains to be seen. I'm not happy about the large number of counterfeits sold on ebay, who is, but the secondary market is very significant, and I don't think it should be seen as a problem. Complicated issue.
Do I applaud this step by LVMH for fighting counterfeit goods? Yes... counterfeiting is a major problem. I read in Consumer Reports once about car brake pads made out of compressed kitty litter and other atrocities. Still, I know someone who has been burned by counterfeits several times (on eBay, no less), but he won't stop buying junk off of eBay. However, he has become more vigilant about his eBay purchases.
Still, to me, sneaky eBay sellers that sell counterfeits are parasites that infect legitimate online and bricks and mortar businesses, especially in perfumes and other luxury goods. I read a study done by Chrysler once... they found that a new car buyer with a negative reaction tells ten times more friends about their experience than one with a positive reaction. The same thing could easily be said for fragrances.
Last, but not least: Keep in mind that LVMH also owns Sephora, their own authorized sales channel for their perfume and cosmetics brands (that also happens to sell many LVMH competitor brands while they're at it). And Sephora is pretty darn big (and growing), especially in France, the US, the Middle East, and China.
Top 5 for Winter:
1) Musk Oud - By Kilian
2) Straight to Heaven - By Kilian
3) Back to Black - By Kilian
4) Encre Noire - Lalique
5) M7 (vintage or Oud Absolu) - YSL
My mission statement: "I am not afraid to keep on living - I am not afraid to walk this world alone."
Without knowing just what this means, we have no way of knowing just what happened. "Authorized network" could mean any number of things from eBay's agreement with them to eBay not being authorized to resell at all.t must also pay 3.25 million euros to four perfume brands -- Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain -- for sales in violation of its authorized network.
LVMH covers a multitude of products beyond perfumes. This decision was not directed specifically at perfumes. It was about eBay not doing enough to prevent the sales of counterfeit goods. Be they sunglasses, luggage, or perfume.
While there can be an argument made that eBay doesn't "sell" any more than the organizer of a flea market "sells", it would be beside the point (if not out and out refuted by the court) now.
LVMH claims it was to prevent sales of counterfeit goods and that eBay wasn't doing enough; eBay claims it was to put a stranglehold on alternative sales outlets. Personally, I believe eBay's argument is not really believable.
I think it was a good decision. Counterfeit goods don't do anyone a favor. If the ruling permits eBay to continue selling products with guidelines in place that prevent the selling of counterfeit goods and satisfy the manufacturers, then everything should be fine.
Catherine Deneuve: "You should put scent where you like to be kissed."
My guess is that the key legal point concerns who is deemed the "seller." If ebay is considered a marketplace, such as an outdoor flea market, they can't be told to control (or stop) what one person sells to another, from what I understand. Of course, a European court can disagree with a US court, right?
As to the counterfeit issue, a court can decide that a site like ebay is "turning a blind eye" to such sales, though one would hope there is abundant evidence to support such a ruling.
Last edited by Bigsly; 30th June 2008 at 11:44 PM. Reason: error correction
Visit my huge swap page: http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=211135
Or visit my Sales page: http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=211407
Samples, etc. for Sale at my Crystal Flacon page: http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=282
My fragrance blog: http://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/
IMO Ebay pays lip service to monitoring it's auctions for counterfeits. It took a Big Boy (LVMH) and a sympathetic French court to hold their feet to the fire while in the past the individual buyer was more or less cast adrift by an Ebay that failed to enforce rules on their sellers.
There are three kinds of people in this world: those who understand math and those who don't (four out of three people surveyed agree with this).
Selling used bottles of vintage Heritage Eau de Parfum (Guerlain), Anima Dulcis (Arquiste), Noel au Balcon (ELDO), Santal de Mysore (Serge Lutens), Aedes de Vensutas (L'Artisan) and more, click HERE
However, that much being said, I remain disappointed in the off-scent of my probably-counterfeit L'Eau par Kenzo, even though it was not bought on eBay, and wish the damned counterfeiters many sleepless nights in cheap motels, on the run.
Several musician friends of mine have seen their precious stolen instruments appear and then disappear on eBay. I almost regard eBay as an untouchable fencing operation.
Hmmm. Maybe that's a legal angle. Luxury houses may not get the same deep-pocket sympathy that eBay's numerous crime victims would.
So now I know why I can't list new items for sale on eBay! I recently sold some genuine Chanel that I had purchased from a housewife in Pacific Heights (chi chi SF neighborhood) on eBay. Then tried to sell the rest of her stock (she suddenly decided that Chanel screamed grandma! though was previously a Chanel fanatic!) and they wouldn't let me list it. Or anything else! And no explanation.
Frankly (pun intended), 63 million is probably NOTHING for eBay. A mere nuisance to them. I think it's the possibility of future lawsuits from other manufacturers that is the real issue for them.
I am now joining the "anything that shafts eBay is alright by me" posse. Now, what do I do with all this perfume.....LOL!
Check out our art car!
PVC and Leather. A Chain and a feather
vive la france a l'enfer avec ebay! they absolutely have turned a blind eye to people selling fake creeds and chanels and whatnot. . . . I mean, come on people now, well all know this!!! I hope every other company that has seen ebay ripping them off follows suit (no pun intended!)
I think they may be making a distinction between other sellers on eBay, and items for sale in the eBay marketplace.
I don't think this will affect sales of fake items - pirates will always find a way.
e.g. White text on a white background that says "This product is not authentic." Technically the information was there, but was "inconspicuous."
Last edited by baudilus; 1st July 2008 at 12:59 PM.
If the only thing I bought on eBay were fragrance, I am sure I would feel as negative some of the opinions expressed here.
My other love is books. I can say I have bought well over 5,000 books on eBay, many antiquarian and rare, many at bargain prices and never once a fake! Probably 1-2% of the time, I get something poorly described, but rarely have felt ripped off. Maybe 5 times, always due to poor descriptions.
So I will echo the dissatisfaction with how eBay has handled the issue of counterfeit fragrance. At the same time I love other aspects of the eBay marketplace.
Ebay has moved far on from being a place for people to auction their unwanted second hand goods. The introduction of shops, buy it nows, etc has meant that lots of people use it for business reasons, it doesn't require the set up costs of a dedicated website and offers a massive buyership with no adverstising outlay. Goods are ordered from suppliers on deals designed for selling through bricks and mortar shops and then are sold without permission on ebay. I can see why this makes producers uncomfortable.
eBay are still accepting LVMH goods for auction it seems, I've just placed an auction for Coriolan (dont buy it, I'm not selling) (see http://www.basenotes.net/industry_ne...bay-fined.html)
I hope the more sales of fake crap on eBay will cease but people keep trying to hock them off. The world is full of useless, cheap junk as it is. eBay to me is the Wal-Mart of the Internet, crammed isles, loud mouthed people and filled with MADE IN CHINA tags.
A friend of mine bought an LV handbag a few years back there. A week after the auction, ebay sent this person an email saying that there might be a problem (don't know exactly what it said, didn't read it) and to contact the seller. The seller was eventually removed from ebay. However, this person saw the same item there about a year later, from a different seller. It's not that difficult to get someone else to sign up on ebay and then sell through that person's name, so long as you have at least a dozen or so friends and relatives. This is why ebay needs to be more proactive about it than they seem to be.
And what about other sites, like craigsligst? I just went over there and saw someone selling an LV bag. The person said that he or she thinks it's authentic but is not sure. It is selling for less than $100, so we all know what that means !
Visit my huge swap page: http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=211135
Or visit my Sales page: http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=211407
Samples, etc. for Sale at my Crystal Flacon page: http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic.php?t=282
My fragrance blog: http://bigslyfragrance.wordpress.com/
I've noticed a recent increase in decants on EBay. This indicates they aren't running a constant screen for terms like decant, vial, etc. Surprising.
I don't think they will ever be able to stop any private individual from selling their own property second hand. You can still list decants on ebay uk.
By the way - I will sell a bottle of coriolan for a pound less than grant's
Last edited by scentsitivity; 1st July 2008 at 06:06 PM.
Cart Lady on eBay, too!
I think it might be a blessing if ebay would go away, fragrance wize!
I'm a woman who loves a bargain! the problem is I end up spending twice as much as I would on things I want on things I am compelled to lurch for cause "it's such a great deal"
yes, usually I can sell em back on ebay, and perhaps even make a profit
but. . . all the work involved and the ludicrousness of it all!
especially since my wardrobe is now more or less "complete" I would welcome ebay's demise in the fragrance dept ....
I hate the fact that eBay stopped allowing sales of decanted fragrances. That was really unfair and uncompetitive. Somebody ought to get a class-action lawsuit against the designer fragrance companies and settle it in court.
The truth is I could make a fair amount of money decanting fragrances and selling samples on eBay, but I can't now. Big busines is just crushing entrepreneurs any way they can.
I have no qualms about buying knockoff frags. These large companies are more than a bit odious in their behavior, and their products are overpriced, and their distribution networks too restrictive. They want to keep up the image of "high-end" when in reality there's not alot seperating them from the drugstore fragrances and knockoffs.
BTW, this isn't a slam on eBay. I love eBay and have been a seller there for quite some time, selling and trading mostly old useless stuff to people that need/want it. I've actually thought about eventually selling my own fragrance creations there eventually. I just wish that Big Business would let some parts of the internet stay like the Wild West instead of Mainstreet/Wallstreet.
Last edited by Magnulus; 4th July 2008 at 12:31 PM.
I have in the past, posted on this subject. There are a lot of inaccurate statements, both here and online in general, regarding the sale of counterfeits, the responsibilities of online marketplaces and the individuals and businesses who employ said marketplaces for selling their wares.
As this is a subject that is germane to most every Basenoter (and since I am paid to be a big fat smartypants Mr. Know-It-All - what a dream job!) I will post again.
First, if you haven't done so, read eBay's official announcement regarding the ruling here:
In order to understand what is at stake here, and what the actual (not assumed or presumed) responsibilities of all parties are with regards to selling brand names items on line, you must first read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
This US law, passed in 1996 clearly sets out the responsibilities and limitations of liability with regards to service provider web sites and the members or subscribers who use them, not limited to but in particular, individuals and businesses that use them to sell copyright protected merchandise. Read it thoroughly. Anyone who wants to opine or argue this subject absolutely must know the current law.
According the to DMCA, sites like eBay are not initially at least, responsible for the activities of their members on their sites. This holds for text content Sites that operate as an online marketplace (where the site itself is defined as a service provider, like eBay for example) are only responsible for providing a mechanism whereby property rights owners can alert the service provider web site about any items or activity on their web site that infringes upon the their rights. eBay created an internal program called VeRO (Verified Rights Owners) to facilitate requests by rights owners to take down items that a rights owner believes infringes on their property rights. Read about VeRO here:
Any rights owner, an individual or a big business, can join the VeRO program. Once a rights owner joins the program, they can, per the guidelines set out by the DMCA, alert eBay whenever they find an item listed on the site that infringes upon their rights. It's important to note that per the law, only a rights owner or their authorized representatives can request a take down of a potentially infringing item. Not you, not me, not an industry expert... only the rights owner, period. (The only exception is when the seller of the item makes a clear statement disclaiming any warranty or guarantee regarding the item's authenticity. The law has determined this is a safe indication to the website owner to take action on their own without risk of setting precedent and assuming additional liability for all similar items).
So, what's at stake here? This ruling, if ultimately successful on appeal, will give manufacturers and brand name holders the precedent they need and the leverage they have sought for years to restrict and control all secondary market activity and prices for their brand name merchandise. (Make no mistake, this suit was never about counterfeits: it is about absolute and total control of their secondary markets, which the industry spokesperson's recent statement about fragrance so clearly indicated).
So, if you have no problem with paying prices set by manufactures (of for example, fragrance, just to name one category) with little or no possibility of the discounts provided by a robust, unobstructed secondary marketplace or if you have no problem with purchasing these items with restrictive resale covenants that severely hamper your ability to resell them, then by all means, celebrate away!
But if you have any interest at all in an open marketplace where you can find great bargains and can resell your brand names items to whomever you choose and at a price you set, then you might want to put aside any vengeful rejoicing about any one particular website and reconsider your enthusiasm and support for this ruling.
If you are interested or vested in online markets, either as a buyer, seller or investor, I urge you to read Dan Nissanoff's excellent book, Futureshop. Dan's view of the future of commerce and of the evolving role of the consumer in all markets is both encouraging and dire at once.
We want the fragrance companies to spend money on development of great perfumes and quality ingredients for those. So let them develop them and market them in a predictable way - one which allows proper price feedback in a LOCAL FREE MARKET. If they price too high in the UK, no-one will buy and they will drop the price. Ebay actually prevents this process.
Well done to the french courts - it is one of the only countries which holds up real values and makes difficult decisions against the all encompassing tide.
I agree with Hirch Duckfinder. "Capitalism" without boundaries eventually hurts the poor no matter what good intentions behind it might be. Me, coming from a poor third world country, can attest to the fact that WTO is only making poor areas poorer. What good is it going to do to an infant industry in a poor country when you ask them to open up their markets for your goods? I, for one, have no problem for paying 10 times more than somebody in Rwanda might pay for it if I am making 10 times more than him.
That said, I doubt the french courts have the well being of poor in mind. They are probably driven by the idea of protecting their markets and the markets they serve. Which is fine by all means. But I wish there is some mechanism applied in putting yourself in the others' shoes too, and apply the same rules when you exploit other markets just because you have money and you can exploit them.
Sorry, again I don't see the logic in that statement and actually, I have met thousands ( no exaggeration) of people who have managed to pull themselves out of near penury and despair by starting a business online (most on eBay).If so it is an agenda more extreme than even the libertarians of the 80's expoused and woud lead to starvation and increased dominance of rich over poor so quickly that the poor would cease to exist in short order.
If you can explain how an open secondary marketplace somehow thwarts fragrance companies from spending money on development of great perfumes, please do . I am all ears.We want the fragrance companies to spend money on development of great perfumes and quality ingredients for those. So let them develop them and market them in a predictable way - one which allows proper price feedback in a LOCAL FREE MARKET.
Please explain how.If they price too high in the UK, no-one will buy and they will drop the price. Ebay actually prevents this process.
What tide? "Tide" of what? I confess, with all respect, to not understand your point.Well done to the french courts - it is one of the only countries which holds up real values and makes difficult decisions against the all encompassing tide.
The problem is related to cross- border enterprises which are impossible to regulate. Put simply - territories make up rules for for how transactions should take place balancing many factors including, for example, the need for taxation for provision of public service, the rights of consumers and the rights of companies to make a profit by fair means on their investments. These rules are then circumvented by various means, including the grey market importing which is hugely prominent on ebay.
The companies have learned to use the grey markets to an extent. However, distribution in this way relieves downward pressure on prices by acting like a valve.
The tide I refer to is the tide of cross-national unregulatable bussiness which serves the rich and disadvantages the poor. There are solutions to this possible, but as yet they are not in place.
No it isn't. This is the open secondary market and it is legal. It is how the market works. Businesses don't buy high to sell low at a loss. Surely you don't champion that.It is about goods which are bought in other parts of the world (where local economics mean they are sold at a lower price) and then resold at a large profit in wealthier matkets. This is the grey market.
What I suspect (and correct me if my suspicion is incorrect) is that you are against anyone but the manufacturer deciding where their products are sold after the first point of sale, correct? (I am not talking about counterfeits - they are unwelcome in eBay's marketplace - I am talking about genuine products.)
A manufacturer has the right to establish contractual arrangements with first point of sale outlets and retailers (or sell their products in their own stores). For example, Geurlain can (and does) strictly control who can purchase their products directly from them for resale. However, once beyond the first point of sale, the manufacturer no longer has a say in the resale of their products. And it doesn't matter if the purchaser is an individual selling off their unwanted birthday present (Heritage does not smell of "old man.") or a wholesaler who discovers a source of the product from either the manufacturer of another retail or wholesaler after the first point of sale. It is all legal and to argue otherwise (or worse, to argue that it should not be legal) is to argue against open marketplaces everywhere.
Of course, a manufacturer can determine if one of their first point of sale clients has violated their contractual agreement and take appropriate action but (and this is very important), the manufacturer has no legal claim on the individual or company that purchased the items from the first point of sale client. If a brand owner's product "bleeds" out of their transaction chain after the first point of sale, it is a matter between the brand owner and their first point of sale retail outlet clients only. It is not the responsibility, legally, morally or ethically, of anyone - individual consumer or business - further down the resale chain.
Based on the actions and words of the plaintiffs in this law suit, it is clear that their intent is to establish a precedent-setting ruling that would give the manufacturer the right to control trade in their items beyond the first point of sale. The precedent this would set would be devastating for small business everywhere (not just online and not just on eBay and not just in the US).
Yes, I love the company ( I work here because I love it, not, "I love it because I work here.") And it is kind of "cool" right now to dump on eBay. (Boooo big bad eBay... Go get em you poor luxury brands!) I can see how this could be fun for some and I would be the last person to deny anyone their moment of fun. But I would strongly urge anyone interested in or vested in the future of open marketplaces to pay very close attention to this suit, the appeal and especially the ramifications as they extend far beyond the fortunes of one company.
I believe you have missed the point. The manufacteres might be wanting to have more control than they should. I am all for secondary market competing and slashing prices on a local basis. The trouble comes in when a shipment from the US intended for overseas, goes overseas and comes back to the US. The fact remains that there should be some kind of mechanism that wont let the citizens of a rich country get something from cheap from a poor country without any ramifications that would help out that poor country in the least. The argument that a 15 year old boy in Africa is atleast earning a living by selling Chanel for $5 to US customers reeks of imperialism. Sure he might be making an earning. I would be all for it if the US customer has to pay a big chunk of the price difference in tariffs and charges that would help the local population. Ebay is helping exploit this in the name of free market.
I repeat: The French court ruling is about one thing and one thing only: the attempt by a group of companies - LVMH in this first go round - to gain control over the free market by asking the French court to prevent the legal resale of their merchandise in those markets, ostensibly online markets like eBay but definitely not limited to those online markets.
LVMH has asked and the court has ruled that no one - business or individual - has the right to sell authentic brand name merchandise in any market, first point of sale and beyond, without the express permission of the brand name owner.
Let me make this clearer to you. If this ruling stands on appeal, it will mean that if you (or that 15 year old African boy) has a bottle of genuine Chanel # 5 , neither of you will be able to sell it legally anywhere without Chanel's permission and, if you do not obtain that permission and you attempt to sell it, they can stop you with a cease and desist order - or worse. Not just on eBay, but on your own web site or even here at venerable BN or technically, in your own garage sale. And once the precedent is set, it is open season on consumers and business owners everywhere for every type of merchandise including brand name clothing, home and garden items, cars, etc. Consumers will no longer purchase items, They will rent or lease them from the manufacturers, with a covenant that prevents them from disposing of the items in any marketplace that they have not pre-approved (and just guess which markets those will be...just guess who will own those markets...)
Personally, I don't think this ruling can stand the scrutiny of an appeal but I could be wrong of course. But make no mistake: if this ruling is upheld, it will be a crippling blow to consumers, small businesses and markets everywhere.
Last edited by Griff; 7th July 2008 at 02:01 AM.
>>>>>>There are already "mechanisms" in place. They are called "tariffs" (and customs duties, taxes etc). It is up to each separate country to set their own trade tariffs, not the marketplace. If an individual or company has found away around paying a country's tariffs or taxes and is doing so in violation of that country's laws, it is up to that country to pursue that individual or company, not the marketplace. (eBay is many things to many people. It is not the global law enforcement agency. )
Right. Ebay, or any other marketplace for that matter, is just an innocent bystander and not a facilitator. Excuse me, but your logic will not fly in any court of law. Imagine being a facilitator of two parties who want to complete a drug deal. You, in this case just introducing them knowing fully well your being a facilitator is going to break some law should be held accountable. Somebody wanting to sell drugs, and somebody else wanting to buy them is government's business. They should take care of that stuff and leave you alone. Try using that in any court of law.
>>>>Let me make this clearer to you. If this ruling stands on appeal, it will mean that if you (or that 15 year old African boy) has a bottle of genuine Chanel # 5 , neither of you will be able to sell it legally anywhere without Chanel's permission and, if you do not obtain that permission and you attempt to sell it, they can stop you with a cease and desist order - or worse. Not just on eBay, but on your own web site or even here at venerable BN or technically, in your own garage sale. And once the precedent is set, it is open season on consumers and business owners everywhere for every type of merchandise including brand name clothing, home and garden items, cars, etc. Consumers will no longer purchase items, They will rent or lease them from the manufacturers, with a covenant that prevents them from disposing of the items in any marketplace that they have not pre-approved (and just guess which markets those will be...just guess who will own those markets...)
You are just playing on the fear factor by extrapolating the ruling. The secondary market place would win an appeal even in the french court. The only business that is bound to lose is the grey market area- and I think you know it fully well the existance of a legitimate LOCAL secondary market on Ebay is non-existant. Even if your fear factor and extra polation holds, then I don't think LMVH or anobody else would waste time coming after the garage sales and small fish like us. Ebay has a right to fear as they have made the illegitimate secondary market (any market that deals with exporting something out of the country only to import it back because the prices for export are lower is illegitimate) their bread and butter.
Wow, maybe this is something to worry about:
From NSTThe French Court of Appeals today denied eBay’s petition to stay an injunction issued June 30 by a Parisian court that requires eBay to halt all sales of four LVMH perfumes [Kenzo, Guerlain, Dior, Givenchy] over any site worldwide that is accessible from France, according to an eBay spokesperson.
[...] The lower court’s order bans not just sales of counterfeits, but sales of genuine bottles of these perfumes [...] According to lawyers for both sides, the injunction even forbids individuals from reselling genuine LVMH products that they received as gifts.
EDIT: Personally I find this laughable, silly French idiots, you cannot dictate what every country is able to sell on a website just because your country has access to the website. So does every other country.
Last edited by s0me0nesmind1; 11th July 2008 at 10:01 PM.
I doubt the selling of personal items could hold in any court. The lawyers are just interpreting the "authorized channels" on their own. Seems like the gray market is illegal as it is in France. If it is already outlawed in France, then the court just interpreted that it applies to Ebay as well. Whats all the fuss about then?
Just to thicken the plot, LVMH has its own legal woes at the moment:
They only put the lead in US-bound lipstick because it's prohibited in Europe. Makes you wonder why it isn't prohibited in the US as well.
I'm not a huge fan of eBay, but LVMH can go to hell. They cheapen and vulgarize everything they touch and sell it to aspirational oafs who don't understand the first thing about quality. The harm counterfeiters have done to their brands doesn't begin to approach the harm they've done to the brands they've bought out.
"Certainly, virtue is like precious odours, most fragrant when they are incensed, or crushed: for prosperity doth best discover vice; but adversity doth best discover virtue."
- Francis Bacon
Ah well, I'm not much of a legal person. Just a run-of-the-mill type who thinks "yes, counterfeits suck" but at the same time thinks "Not another unwanted perfume prezzie! Doesn't matter I can flog it on ebay. While I'm there maybe I can pick up a bottle of something I do want from someone in the same situation". Can't I have it both ways? What do counterfeiters have to do with selling genuine items you no longer want?
What makes the perfume guys so special anyway? Surely this situation applies to most stuff on ebay?
Sorry folks, Griff hit this spot on. By supporting this, you're just signing more of your rights away for what they like to perceive to YOU as "safety". Shit, why don't you just regulate that I can't sell perfumes at my garage sale?
caveat emptor, folks. Always been my words to live by.
In my opinion, I find it hard to imagine that LVMH has anything but their bottom lines at heart. The notion that they give a fig about responsibilities to consumers is well-meant, but implausible.
On an aside, why do people dislike ebay? Just a genuine question here; I mean, I don't particularly love the folks, but I don't dislike them at all; I've bought and sold things there without incident MANY times over the years.
Also, I'm in the camp of squeamish at the precedent set by this, and for the possibility of the beloved basenotes marketplace in the crosshairs next. Deep pockets make for stubborn adversaries
Aside from the fact that rejoicing or despairing by the mass of merchants has no influence on the legal outcome - a fact well known and exploited by your company - let us keep the facts and truth firmly before us. The "grey market" restrictions can hold only in limited venue if at all - because of the First Sale Doctrine and similar laws and NOT the DMCA obviously - and have no real significance to the main thrust of this ruling which is that eBay inc does in fact have a legal obligation to eliminate their trade in counterfeits. Should eBay in fact do so, it would result in a more open marketplace where legitimate product is bought and sold and the bargains are real instead of illusions.But if you have any interest at all in an open marketplace where you can find great bargains and can resell your brand names items to whomever you choose and at a price you set, then you might want to put aside any vengeful rejoicing about any one particular website and reconsider your enthusiasm and support for this ruling.
Last edited by RealityCheck; 13th July 2008 at 06:37 PM.
Last edited by RealityCheck; 13th July 2008 at 06:49 PM.
Last edited by s0me0nesmind1; 13th July 2008 at 07:06 PM.
The ultimate effect of the judgment may be applied by other brands should they choose to pursue it. That is the result which eBay objects to, and the result which would result in a safer, more open marketplace by eliminating knock-offs. It doesn't matter whether a given brand or eBay inc cares about that.
You can say the suit is about counterfeits, but at the end of the day it's about money. Every lawsuit is about money. They want more of it. More open marketplace? Read this again, they want to eliminate ALL SALES (legitimate AND counterfeit). that is, there will be no marketplace if they have their way. They want to eliminate your right to resell your property so that instead of you selling to say a fellow basenoter, they want to make them go out and buy another bottle at full retail so they can rejoice, and people like me and you can suffer if you no longer like a fragrance.
How is a marketplace more safer when the marketplace doesn't exist?That is the result which eBay objects to, and the result which would result in a safer, more open marketplace by eliminating knock-offs.
Last edited by s0me0nesmind1; 13th July 2008 at 07:38 PM.
1. Stopping eBay from facilitating the sale of counterfeits
2. Stopping "unauthorized" sales of the brands
Taking the eBay press releases at face value you may well be led to believe that it was all about the second part. Griff's false statement was explicit and direct, all about controlling the market. Don't believe it; the suit and judgment are primarily about the counterfeits, and not about exerting control. That's simply a talking point to divert public attention from their defeat with respect to the first part.
The second, lesser part is unenforceable in many venues including the USA and possibly in Europe, perhaps even in France. Relax, it will not eliminate all online sales.
There was an interesting article I read a couple of yeas back- I believe in NYTimes- regarding how eliminating counterfeits would hurt the bottom line of luxury good companies. I found the argument perfectly sensible. I know of quite a few people who wouldn't have dished out $600 for something authentic in the begining primarily because of sticker shock. They might have bought counterfeits or more afforadble brands at first, but did end up dishing out the sticker price eventually. Had that ladder not been available. it wouldn't have been possible for them to overcome the sticker shock no matter what.
The French Court of Appeals today denied eBay’s petition to stay an injunction issued June 30 by a Parisian court that requires eBay to halt all sales of four LVMH perfumes [Kenzo, Guerlain, Dior, Givenchy] over any site worldwide that is accessible from France, according to an eBay spokesperson.
Last edited by s0me0nesmind1; 13th July 2008 at 08:10 PM.
Am I missing something or are you?
I believe you are ignoring the main portion of the judgment, just as Griff and eBay intended, and are confusing an appeal to stay the injunction with the original judgment.
You are also quoting a statement ending with "according to an eBay spokesperson." There are two reasons why eBay (not every internet site worldwide) is enjoined: 1) because the first court deemed their anti-counterfeiting measures inadequate and 2) the court affirmed that French law prohibited the sales in France by unlicensed distributors.
Let's cut this short, as it's becoming repetitive. You can repeat the corporate false claim as often as you want that this is all only about a brand wanting to control the market. It won't change the facts and the legal ramifications.
That's where the quote is from.
Of course the perfume companies are interested in protecting their markets and profits - that is what companies do. What do you expect them to do? Our society supports companies making profits in fair ways and attempts to regulate those making profits in unfair ways.
Ebay has for a long time supported unfair profit maiking by its sellers and hence itself.
For example - why was second chance introduced? This was because sellers were falsely inflating the price of their auctions by bidding from secondary accounts (or cooperating with networks of friends to do this) and sometimes losing the sales by bidding too high. Used to be be lost sales - now second chance offers. This practice was very obvious to anyone trading on ebay. The whole "bump-bidding" thing is very common. Ebay were so lax about challanging this it became not worth reporting.
Add to this grey market, stolen goods, counterfeits and this company has seriously abused its monopoly.
I hope it gets hammered in courts accross the world.
I don't think seond chance offer is too terrible. Even if some sellers might be inflating the auction price, it is really upto the buyers who are interested to set their maximum bid. If I am setting my maximum bid at $50, then I know beforehand I could pay upto $50 for that item. Sure if I get it for $20, that would be great. But I had already decided I could pay as much as $50 for it.
Second Chance Offers could be a good thing for one-off sellers. I put something up on there, and the winning bidder just bid on it. She just had a rush of blood and bid, and wasn't willing to pay up. Second Chance Offer was a blessing for me as it saved me time to relist again.
You might be talking from the point of view how some sellers might be abusing it, and how Ebay wants to get the most $ out of it. But then again, thats what all the companies want to do.
The real issue in this case is unauthorized resale channels are outlawed in France, unlike in the US or UK. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to decide sellers selling on Ebay are unauthorized, and Ebay is held accountable for allowing the sales. Forget about the counterfeits, as apparently all hail is breaking lose for others on this forum because the court said even legitimate sales from unauthorized channels is included in this ruling. I am not sure what would they want any court to do if the law of the land says you need to be an authorized seller to sell.
I never post on this site, but Griff is correct. They are trying to control the market. Period. End of Story.
The reason they strictly control who can sell their items is to control the price. If you really think the price of this stuff is driven by market forces you are delusional. If anything you should be praising Ebay for opening markets.