from the nicely-done dept
Without investigating the validity of its allegations, Coach wantonly accuses consumers of infringing its trademarks by selling counterfeit Coach products. Coach apparently monitors online retailers such as E-Bay, looking for ads from consumers selling second hand Coach products. In response to such ads, Coach delegates a New York law firm to launch a threatening letter to the consumer. These letters accuse the consumer of trademark infringement, threaten legal action, and demand the immediate payment of damages to Coach in "settlement" of Coach's threats. At the same time, Coach (or its New York law firm) informs the online retailer that infringing merchandise is being sold on its website. In many cases, this causes the online retailer to involuntarily remove the allegedly infringing ad, and to disable the consumer's online account. This destroys any chance the consumer had to sell the Coach product second hand, and otherwise damages the consumer.We've definitely seen attempts to use trademark law to block the legitimate sale of secondhand goods. It's a bad trend that needs to be stopped, and hopefully lawsuits like this might do the trick. Unfortunately, in the past few years, we've seen some really underhanded tricks used by producers to effectively block secondhand sales and first sale rights through legal trickery. It's not clear if that kind of defense will be used here.
In many cases (such as that of the lead plaintiff identified here), Coach's allegations of infringement are flatly false. It appears that Coach fails to conduct even a minimally reasonable investigation into its counterfeiting claims before threatening legal action. For example, the lead plaintiff identified in this Complaint is a former Coach employee, who owned, and tried to sell, genuine and legitimate Coach products It was entirely legal for her to do so. Coach's threats against her were false, reckless, and unwarranted.
The lawsuit itself wants a declaratory judgment that selling legitimate Coach goods secondhand does not infringe... but also includes a defamation claim, pointing out that accusing someone of infringement when it's not true could be seen as libelous. That part seems like a stretch, but I'll be curious to see how the court rules.