L'Oreal Looks For Friendlier Locales In Its Suits Against eBay

from the you-can-even-shop-for-jurisdictions-easily-online dept

US courts have generally recognized that eBay isn't liable for the actions of people who use its site to sell counterfeit goods, though a recent decision went the other way. This situation reflects the lack of uniformity around the world in this type of case: for instance, eBay was found liable in France, but was not in Belgium. In the Belgian case, eBay was sued by cosmetics maker L'Oreal, but the company hasn't let the ruling slow it down, as it's now filed a similar suit in the UK. It's also sued eBay in France, Germany and Spain -- which could lead one to believe that it's jurisdiction shopping, simply filing suits in many different countries and seeing what sticks, with the hopes that victory in one place will force eBay to play ball worldwide. The issue of eBay's lack of liability as a platform provider remains an important one, but the problem of international jurisdiction shopping remains a massive one for companies online.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It Trademark Infringement To Resell A Product You Legally Bought?

from the here-we-go-again... dept

It seems like we have a few of these cases every year or so, where some company that tries to maintain strict control over its distribution channels freaks out about people reselling products online. A few years ago it was a shampoo company that said no one could resell their shampoo bottles. Now, it's the famed cosmetics firm Mary Kay, who is claiming that an online retailer is violating its trademark.

The details of the case are pretty interesting. Basically, Mary Kay requires its "independent" distributors buy a certain amount of product every month to sell -- and the amount required is often a lot more than they can reasonably expect to sell. So, one former Mary Kay distributor set up a pretty good business in buying the "remnant" inventory from others at lower prices (better than being stuck with it completely) and then reselling it online. It's basically arbitraging the inefficiencies set up by Mary Kay's ridiculous system that pushes excess product onto its distributors.

But, of course, Mary Kay doesn't like any of this (despite the fact that it still gets paid for its product) -- and, in theory it should have no case due to the always popular first sale doctrine (i.e., you can resell stuff you bought). Except, Mary Kay is trying to get around this by claiming that the online seller's goods are "materially different" and thus first sale doesn't apply. Why are the products materially different? Apparently, they're old, expired and not supported any more -- which doesn't necessarily seem to be "materially different," but perhaps a judge will find otherwise.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Motorola Trying To Ban Reselling Phones?

from the hopefully-not dept

We've seen video game execs freaking out about the second-hand sales market, and apparently that may be expanding to other arenas. The Register has an unnamed source (so make of that what you will) claiming that Motorola is asking people to sign contracts on a new phone that ban the buyer from reselling the phone to anyone, other than back to the manufacturer. Of course, this is an economically dumb argument. The resale market helps add value to the primary market, and allows the company to charge more for its product initially. As Mathew Ingram points out, some are suggesting that this move would violate the first sale doctrine, though that could depend on a variety of factors. I would imagine that the terms could establish the situation as a "lease" of the phone rather than a purchase, but that might be difficult to get the courts to accept. Also, my understanding of first sale doctrine was that it only applied to intellectual property -- not physical goods, so I'm not sure it would really apply here. Either way, it would seem to be dumb, whether or not it's legal. If you want to decrease interest in your product, adding such a clause seems like a reasonable way to do so.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another Lawsuit Over Whether A Company Can Ban The Sale Of Its Products Online

from the first-sale dept

Just last week we were talking about baby stroller companies in the UK trying to prevent retailers from selling their goods on eBay, and now Eric Goldman points us to news of a case in the US on this very issue. Here we have a "dietary supplement" seller, Standard Process, who sued an online e-commerce site, Total Health, for selling its supplements despite not being an "authorized reseller." Basically, Total Health would buy products from Standard Process through other means and then resell them online -- which seems like it should be perfectly legal.

Not so far, claims the judge. The court refused to grant a summary judgment, claiming that, even though Total Health makes it abundantly clear that it is not an authorized reseller, because Total Health uses the pronouns "we" and "our" in describing Standard Process' products that it somehow (how? who knows?) implies evidence of an affiliation. That seems like quite a stretch. The judge also notes that since Total Health shows up as the top ad result in a search for Standard Process, there's an implied association (why? again... that's not explained at all). There are a few other questionable bits of reasoning by the judge, highlighted at the link above. The judge did rule in Total Health's favor on the question of whether or not it interfered with the "contract" between Standard Process and its authorized resellers, by noting that there's no actual contract if Standard Process just tells the resellers the terms without any actual agreement or exchange taking place. It has the right to stop selling to those resellers, but not to claim that they broke an existing contract.

Still the first part of this ruling does seem quite questionable. It seems like a stretch to think that any moron in a hurry would be confused by Total Health's marketing claims -- when it quite clearly states that it's not an official reseller of Standard Process' goods. It seems like the court twisted itself over backwards to try to come up with any loose link to try to make that connection.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can A Company Ban Retailers From Selling Its Products On eBay?

from the bad-for-your-market dept

Right on the heels of the awful court decision in France saying that eBay can be barred from selling even legitimate products, it appears some companies in England are shooting for a similar ruling. Jon Pyser writes in to let us know that a bunch of baby stroller companies in the UK are pushing hard to stop retailers from selling their legitimately purchased products on eBay. Effectively, they're trying to put EULAs on baby strollers suggesting that the retailer buyers don't actually have the right to resell what they've legally purchased. Not only is this questionable from a legal standpoint, it's dumb from a business standpoint. A healthy secondary market for products increases the value of the product itself, since buyers intrinsically recognize the potential resale market in determining the value of purchasing the original. In fact, one retailer notes that in taking away eBay sales, it's made selling that brand of stroller unprofitable. You would think, after 200+ years of economists explaining how protectionism hurts your own market, that people would understand this concept by now.

60 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New England Patriots Spying On Ticket Resales; Court Forces Stubhub To Hand Over Ticket Seller Names

from the privacy?-schmivacy dept

We've heard plenty of stories about organizations trying to ban the resale of tickets to events. It seems a bit silly to tell someone who bought a ticket to a concert or a sporting event that they're not allowed to resell it, but apparently some event organizers feel differently -- especially when the tickets are sold at greater than face value. The New England Patriots apparently are so adamant that people shouldn't be reselling their tickets for profit that they've convinced a court to force ticket resale marketplace StubHub to hand over the names of everyone who resold Patriots tickets for above face value. This seems like a rather large privacy violation -- and it clearly violates Stubhub's own terms of service (which is why the company fought it in court). You could understand being forced to turn over such information in a criminal lawsuit, but this is the New England Patriots requesting and getting the private info of sellers. For a team that just got into some trouble for spying on opposing teams, spying on their fans' private transactions doesn't seem like a step forward.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..