Another Misuse Of Trademark Law To Prevent Competition

from the just-what-we-needed dept

Gregory A. Beck of Public Citizen writes in to let us know "Public Citizen Litigation Group filed suit yesterday against Dymo Corporation, a company that makes label printers. Our client is a small eBay seller named Rip Mohl, who sells printer labels that are compatible with Dymo printers. After failing to talk him into becoming an authorized distributor of brand-name Dymo labels, the company began invoking eBay's Verified Rights Owner ("VeRO") program to terminate his auctions of compatible labels. VeRO is an implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but although the DMCA applies only to claims of copyright infringement, eBay also extends the same takedown procedures to trademark claims. In this case, the company claimed that by truthfully stating that the labels were compatible with Dymo printers, Mohl was infringing the company's "Dymo" trademark. After several VeRO terminations, Mohl had to remove the Dymo name from his listings in order to avoid the risk of losing his eBay account. As a result, his sales have declined to a fraction of what they used to be. Printer companies are especially active in terminating the eBay sales of compatible products like labels and ink cartridges. This is, we think, another example of abuse of intellectual property laws to squelch legitimate competition. This kind of abuse ultimately hurts everyone by raising prices and reducing choices available to consumers. The Dymo-brand labels on eBay, for example, cost an extra couple dollars per roll. Small eBay sellers, however, typically do not have the resources to defend themselves from the intellectual property claims of big corporations. These claims therefore almost always go unchallenged." This is another bad use of trademark law -- having nothing to do with the intended purpose of trademarks.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 12:30pm

    eBay Law

    "This is another bad use of trademark law"

    ...either that, or the "eBay Law"... which we all know otherwise as, "do what I say and not what I do".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Rabble Rouser, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 12:43pm

    "This is another bad use of trademark law"
    I agree, when corporation giants see the little guy, they want to squash him so they can eat all the profits. This is wrong because it drowns out the competition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 12:44pm

    brand-name Dymo labels

    "who sells printer labels that are compatible with Dymo printers. After failing to talk him into becoming an authorized distributor of brand-name Dymo labels"

    if Dymo is so "in the right" about their claims, than eBay should also remove all items that are compatible with other such items - such as car parts that are compatible with major manufacture cars (ever heard of AFTERMARKET SUPPORT PRODUCTS?)

    ...and what about other products that are compatible with someone who owns a Sony VCR and a JVC Television with Adelphia provided Cable hooked up through wires purchased through Radio Shack...

    But with Dymo's analogy, the customer would have to have 100% of the product purchased from Best Buy, being manufactured by Best Buy and being 100% ONLY supported by Best Buy... as an example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 12:48pm

    And then what happens if Dymo should go out of business - does this mean that everyone with a Dymo product should throw out that product and replace it with that of a product made by another company?

    I mean, if Dymo doesn't allow aftermarket support for their products, they are essentially shooting themselves in their feet if they should ever run into financial problems.

    Dymo products will be obsolete since the only place to get support Dymo will be from Dymo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    discojohnson, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 12:53pm

    dymo loses

    no laws were broken. next case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:05pm

    Chain of command

    -Apathetic voters elect stupid governent
    -Stupid government creates bad law
    -Greedy company exploits bad law
    -Gutless auction house fails to protect customers from bad law

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Jim W, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:07pm

    Why doesn't everyone who reads this report send a message by emailing Dymo on their website and inform them that they are switching to Brother after reading this? It seems to me that they need a lession in ethical behaviour.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:07pm

    Re: dymo loses

    "no laws were broken. next case."

    if this is the case, why should Dymo make such a big deal about PCLG selling aftermarket products? I mean, the harassment that PCLG has been getting from Dymo is enough for them to at least file suit against Dymo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Greg Beck, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:27pm

    No laws were broken, that is true. The problem, however, is with the DMCA and eBay's VeRO program you are guilty until proven innocent. Even if a claim is meritless, it will still get your sale taken down. There is no counternotice procedure or other appeals process for trademark claims, so the only recourse is to sue. Biig companies count on the fact that small eBay sellers aren't going to subject themselves to that kind of trouble and expense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Legal Advisor, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:51pm

    Sue the Bastards

    Frankly, the person should keep track of ALL expenses and hurt sales due to this and get a lawyer and sue over this.

    No laws were broken. Dymo should pay. End of Story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    jdragon, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:56pm

    I'll sure not to use Dymo

    I'm going to boycott anything made by Dymo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 1:57pm

    This is bizarre. As a paralegal I took a course in Copyright, Patent and Trademark law...one of the things that is very specifically as a kind of fair use is to mention a trademarked item if you have something compatible with it. This certainly seems to me to fall within that permissibility.

    Ebay can have whatever policies it wishes, of course, But they should make it clear it's just an ebay restriction and not something to do with legal restrictions on trademark usage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    michael Vilain, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 2:49pm

    can't contact Dymo

    They seem to have insulated their web site from email contact. There's no current way to contact them via email. So, that leaves filing suit and serving papers (and boycotting their products).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Chris, Apr 25th, 2006 @ 9:11pm

    I think he was wrong

    After reading the actual facts of the case, I'd have to say that I'm with Dymo on this one. If trademark laws are to prevent confusion in the market place then this is a legit violation.

    There's nothing in his item description to say that these labels are not made by Dymo.

    Reading it I would not at first glance think that these were a third party label.

    I do think that trademark and copyright are over used, but this is a legit case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Kim, Apr 26th, 2006 @ 4:05pm

    Re: I think he was wrong

    He states it's a 'compatible' and in no way did he state that the labels were made by Dymo.

    There are plenty of 'compatible' items on the market. Why is Dymo picking on him?

    Dymo is just a plain bully, and using eBay's LOUSY VERO program (which has lots of loopholes) to enforce their bullying! A total disgrace imho!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Chris, Apr 27th, 2006 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: I think he was wrong

    The main point is that:
    Reading it I would not at first glance think that these were a third party label.
    In my opinion that is confusion in the market place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Bob, Mar 25th, 2008 @ 2:11am

    Patent infringement

    What is strange here is that Dymo labels are patented, so why didn't they just sue him for patent infringement?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This