eBay win Tiffany court case
July 14, 2008
eBay have scored a victory in their Internet trademark lawsuit bought by Tiffany.
The judge has ruled that Tiffany were unable to prove that eBay were responsible for fake jewellery appearing on the site.
Whilst Tiffany asserted that eBay turned a blind eye to counterfeit goods, eBay defended the case pointing out that Tiffany declined to participate in its VeRO program designed to assist rights owners in taking down fakes and items which infringe their copyright.
The judge has deemed eBay to have acted reasonably with steps in place to protect rights owners from counterfeiters. The ruling also emphasises that the primary responsibility for protecting brands and trademarks is the manufacturers responsibility.
eBay said of the ruling: “While today’s decision is a victory for consumer choice, it is a shame that so much effort has been wasted when Tiffany could have worked with eBay to more effectively fight counterfeits.”
Coming so soon after last weeks restrictive ruling by the French courts this is good news for the eBay legal team, and great news for the sellers of authentic items.
Updated to add: eBay have issued a further statement expanding on their delight at winning the Tiffany court case.
Rob Chesnut, senior vice president and legal counsel at eBay explained that eBay has always been committed to eradicating counterfeits which are prohibited on eBay adding “We are extremely pleased that this ruling supports consumers by allowing them greater choice and value through the global marketplace that eBay provides. This decision validates that eBay has always been committed to fighting counterfeits in a way that goes beyond what the law requires. We see this as an important victory for our global community of buyers and sellers.â€
He went on to explain that eBay have pioneered the fight against counterfeits with the VeRO program which 18,000 rights holders use to help eBay remove fakes from the site.
Rob finishes the statement saying the court ruling is inline with established precedent holding the obligation to enforce trademarks with the rights owner but saying eBay will continue to aggressively protect their marketplace.
Chicago welcomes eBay (and sues them)
May 20, 2008
As Chicago prepares to welcome eBay Live! to the city, it’s also taking them to court for for unpaid taxes on ticket sales.
The city has an “Amusement Tax” which is payable by ticket brokers for “theatrics, shows, exhibitions, athletics events and other amusements within Chicago”. They contend that both eBay and Stubhub are resellers agents and should be collecting the amusement tax on behalf of the city to the tune of some $4.2m a year.
If eBay, Stubhub and similar sites are to be turned into tax collectors for Chicago, then there’s nothing to stop every city in America imposing similar requirements. The burdon of assimilating different tax rates based on the venue of the ticket sold would be immense.
Let’s hope that eBay haven’t forgotten about taxes on eBay Live! or there could be tax collectors at the doors of the McCormick Convention Center 
Craigslist respond to eBay’s law suit
May 17, 2008
Craigslist has responded to eBay’s lawsuit (opens in .pdf) in which it was alleged they had adopted a ‘poison pill’. This prevents eBay from selling their shares to anyone not approved by the Craigslist board, and issued extra shares which diluted eBay’s share of the company to below 25%. The result is that they lost the right to appoint a representative to the Craigslist board.
Their response emphasizes that eBay had, and still has the same opportunity to enter into a right of first refusal (ROFR), meaning only Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and Jim Buckmaster CEO of Craigslist could purchase their shares. This would result in eBay being granted additional shares restoring their original 28.4% stake in the company.
eBay assert that accepting the ROFR provides no benefit to them and have been free of the ROFR since June 2007, meaning they are free to sell their shares at will. Newmark and Buckmaster were still bound to each other with each only able to sell their shares to the other. Naturally this claim is denied in the response by Craigslist.
Craigslist admit many of the points that caused eBay to sue them, but in their defence claim that they were acting as directors in the best interests of the company and are protected by law for doing so.
What the complaint doesn’t answer is were the changes made to protect the company, or were they made for the sole benefit of the two majority shareholders?
eBay email undefined account types
March 6, 2008
eBay have started to email active accounts which pre-date the Business/Private seller account types introduced in 2006. eBay users are being advised that if they don’t confirm if they are a Business or Private seller by 30th April this year they will be unable to list further items for sale on eBay
The email goes on explain that laws vary according to if the seller is a private individual or operating as a business along with guidance on how to choose which type of account to opt for, buying to sell is the most clear cut criteria.
eBay stated earlier this year that they’ll be enforcing business registration on more sellers, normally if you’re trading in high volumes.
From 30th April it will be impossible to list on eBay without hanging your colours to the mast and declaring if you’re a business or a private individual. Hopefully in time buyers will come to recognise that businesses offer better terms and conditions which could in time be reflected in better prices and more sales.
These terms do not affect your statutory rights
February 15, 2008
Many sellers ask questions such as “Do I have to refund the postage a buyer paid if they return the item” and “Do I have to pay the return postage”. As a business seller the simple answer to those two questions is “Yes” and “Maybe”, for more information you need to familiarise yourself with the relevant legislation
Most business sellers strive to create terms and conditions, including returns policies, which comply with the law. Others do their best to argue the finer points and a few simply ignore the law and apply their own conditions. There’s also a confusion as to which legislation applies to immediate purchase items and which apply to auctions.
It’s worth noting that in some cases by abiding by the law you actually get more favourable terms, an example being under the Distance Selling Regulations (DSR) a buyer can return the item at will for up to three months and seven working days. By complying with the DSR this can be reduced to just seven working days.
In reality you can have whatever terms and conditions you choose at will. So long as you inform the buyer of their rights under the law you don’t have to apply the law in preference to your own terms unless specifically asked to.
So now you know that your selling terms and return policy can be almost anything you like, what should you do? The real answer is having terms which meet the legal requirements in the first place isn’t a bad policy and in fact there’s a great arguement for going further than the minimum that the law insists on.
Firstly it’s worth bearing in mind that if you accept credit cards, PayPal or similar payment methods buyers will have more protection automatically, and that includes items from private sellers and eBay auctions.
Whilst the disclaimer “These terms do not affect your statutory rights” could be used to offer poorer service than the law demands, how much more impressive is it to say “The law says we don’t have to refund your return postage but we will anyway”? Or “You only had seven working days to return that item and it’s now two weeks but we’ll accept a return regardless”?
Giving the customer better service than the law demands is the mark of the best companies. On eBay if you’re fair to customers you’ll be successful, the best sellers will get the best rewards in terms of repeat business and feedback.
Don’t look at the minimum service you can give and hide behind a buyers statutory rights. Look to give the very best service you can and exceed your buyers expectations.
Is an eBay auction style listing an auction?
February 11, 2008
A Pennsylvanian woman is facing a fine of up to ten million dollars for selling on eBay. The State of Pennsylvania is prosecuting Mary Jo Pletz for “auctioning” goods on eBay without an auctioneers license. There is a possible $1000 fine for each infringement and Pletz has sold 10,000 items on eBay.
The only good news appears to be that the latest court papers only cite two counts so the fine could be as little as $2000. Also state officials acknowledge that a stay at home mum working to care for her children “was not the best person with whom to make a legal point”.
eBay are of course opposing legislation that would require sellers on the site to apply for a license, although a fair solution could be an “electronic auctioneer’s license” costing about $40 per year. The issue is of course the unanswered question are eBay “auction style listings” auctions?
In the UK it would appear that they are considered auctions, eBay themselves state on the site that “the UK Distance Selling Regulations do not apply to eBay auction format listings. This would imply that auction style listings are indeed considered auctions to qualify for exemption from the Distance Selling Regulations.
There may be a difference between “auctions” and “internet auctions” which would simplify the discussion, but until that is settled different countries (and even different states within a country) all have their own interpretation of exactly what they are.
