L’Oréal tells French court eBay ‘negligent’ on fakes
December 11, 2008
A lawyer for cosmetics firm L’Oréal has told a French court that the company is ‘negligent’ in fighting the sale of branded goods on the site. L’Oréal claim that up to 60% of perfumes sold using its brand names on eBay are fakes, and asked the court to appoint an expert to assess the actual value of lost sales as part of their claim against eBay.
In August, a Belgian court dismissed a similar case, saying that policing merchandise was not eBay’s responsibility. Cases brought in the UK, Germany and Spain have yet to be decided.
Buyer sued over negative feedback
October 23, 2008
The Daily Mail reports that an eBay buyer is being sued by a seller for whom he left negative feedback. Chris Read bought a mobile phone described as being in good condition, but when he received it, he says it was both damaged, and not the model he ordered. He left negative feedback for his seller, and assumed that would be the end of the matter. But he’s now received a letter informing him that if he doesn’t retract his comments, he will be sued for libel.
The seller told reporters that he’d given the buyer a no-quibble refund: “surely that is great customer service and deserves positive feedback.” It’s not quite clear whether the refund was before or after the feedback: the buyer commented that it “took a while to come through”.
Earlier this year, a seller in the US tried to sue a buyer for leaving neutral feedback, though the judge in the case threw it out. But as Mr Read’s seller says he has been disadvantaged in search results due to this negative feedback - and with 2 negs out of 30 feedback in the last month, that would sound right - feedback really does now have the power to damage someone’s livelihood. I think we’ll be seeing a few more of these cases in the very near future.
Belgian court rules for eBay against L’Oréal
August 12, 2008
A Belgian court has dismissed a case brought by L’Oréal against eBay. The cosmetics manufacturer had taken legal action against eBay, saying that they did not do enough to stop the sale of counterfeited products on the site. The court ruled that policing the merchandise was not eBay’s responsibility, though a spokesperson for eBay did stress that the company does work with rights owners to remove fake goods. Similar cases brought by L’Oréal in the UK, France, Germany and Spain are yet to be decided.
Tiffany to appeal eBay fakes ruling
August 11, 2008
Tiffany have said that they have filed an appeal against the ruling that eBay are not responsible for counterfeit merchandise sold via the site. The judgement made in a US court last month said that eBay had taken reasonable steps to stop the sale of fake jewellery, and that the primary responsibility for policing Tiffany’s trademarks lay with Tiffany themselves. The jeweller’s lawyer James B. Swire stated, “we do not believe the law allows auction sites like eBay to continue to turn a blind eye to this problem while reaping profits from the listing and sale of counterfeit merchandise. Trademark law does not impose a duty on Tiffany to police eBay’s site: eBay designed the site and has the responsibility to police it.”
PayPal to give seller details to taxman
August 7, 2008
The PayPal Blog notes that new legislation in the US will require PayPal to hand over sellers’ details to the IRS. US PayPal users who annually receive more than $20,000 in total, and more than 200 seperate payments, will have their details passed to the taxman. PayPal are keen to emphasise that the legislation does not come into effect until 2011, so the first details will not be handed over until 2012.
Last year, eBay Canada was compelled to hand over records relating to Canadian PowerSellers to the Canada Revenue Agency, and eBay Australia gave information on their top sellers to the Australian Taxation Office. With the UK taxman already spidering auctions, it can only be a matter of time before HMRC ask for British sellers’ records, so the advice remains contact them before they contact you.
Another reminder for UK and Irish business sellers
July 31, 2008
There’s a reminder from eBay UK today that business sellers in the UK and Ireland need to register as such with eBay. The new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 came into force in the UK on 26th May, under which it is a criminal offence to make false or misleading statements relating to the status of your business. Irish sellers have the same obligation under the Consumer Protection Act 2007.
Of course, this has been something that eBay has been talking about since at least January: I’d hazard a guess that most of the sellers who are not registered as businesses when they should be, have made a deliberate decision to do so, perhaps hoping to avoid tax on their earnings, or their obligations under the Distance Selling Regulations.
Though eBay do make some efforts to limit non-registered businesses on the site, many sellers believe they don’t go nearly far enough, and complain that eBay do not act on reports of breaches of their own rules. A recent thread on the PowerSeller Board complained that eBay have told sellers to report unregistered businesses to Trading Standards, but that Trading Standards are not interested. If the information in that thread is correct, Trading Standards themselves seem to have a very limited understanding of the law in this area: the Distance Selling Regulations are not the only legislation with which online traders need to comply, and all sellers should protect both themselves and their customers by knowing about their legal obligations.
Software industry threatens to sue eBay over counterfeits
July 26, 2008
After the designers, the perfume makers and the jewellers, the software industry may become the next group to sue eBay over sales of counterfeit merchandise. Keith Kupferschmid is senior vice president for intellectual property policy and enforcement of the SIIA, a trade organisation which represents software manufacturers such as Adobe, Apple, Oracle and Sun: Kupferschmid said in an interview that eBay’s “refusal to work with us will only push us closer and closer to a lawsuit”.
So far, SIIA has persued individual sellers of pirate software through eBay: earlier this week, one eBay seller was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and SIIA say that another six cases have been filed. They are also chasing those selling counterfeit software through other merchant sites: Scott Bain, their litigation counsel, told InternetNews.com that they expect to file their first suits against non-eBay sellers within weeks.
But this may not be enough for the SIIA. Kupferschmid said that they had made more than 20 suggestions to eBay on how the site could more effectively police software sales, ranging from banning the use of Buy It Now on software, delaying the appearance of software listings on the site to allow manual approval, placing a notice on the feedback of those caught selling pirate software, or running a paid-for ad warning buyers of the dangers of buying pirated software. But, he said, “they just say no.”
So are the SIIA going to sue eBay? “That’s something that we have talked about with our members and talked about internally,” said Kupferschmid. But Bain said, “I don’t mean it to sound like we’re sitting here drafting a case because we’re not.”
On eBay’s part, spokesperson Nichola Sharpe said “counterfeits are very bad for our business - we don’t want them on our site. People don’t want to buy them and we don’t want to sell them. But we can’t be the expert.” She said that the VeRO programme allows rights holders to request removal of infringing merchandise. CNet also cites eBay’s “fraud search engine”, which
has 13,000 rules that are designed to identify counterfeit listings based on words such as “replica” or “knock-off.” Listings flagged by the search engine are manually reviewed by customer service representatives.
Following the Tiffany verdict, any action taken against eBay would, says Kuperfschmid, rely more on copyright law than trademark law. He believes that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act could provide for eBay’s liability for infringing items sold via the site. And even if it doesn’t, the option to rewrite the law is always there: “there may be a point where we decide to go up to Congress and ask for legislation.”
UK PowerSellers must register as businesses by 20th July
July 3, 2008
Back in January, eBay announced that it would become compulsory for PowerSellers to be registered as businesses on the site. Pink Olly has now posted on the PowerSeller Board that as of 20th July, anyone who is not registered as a business seller will lose their PS status.
Olly has also reiterated what eBay told me a month or so ago, that there is a level at which sellers are required to register as businesses, or they are prevented from selling on the site. For those unsure why they need to register, representing yourself as a private seller when you are in fact a trader is a breach of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and can lead to criminal prosecution.
Anyone who needs to change to business seller status should go to My eBay > My Account > Personal Information, and change their account type to “business”.
Updated to add: as noted on the Business Selling Board, “business seller not displaying proper information” has now been added to the “report this item” form.
Craigslist’s turn to sue eBay
May 14, 2008
Following the lawsuit filed by eBay against Craigslist for diluting their 28.4% share of the company to below 25%, Craigslist have now sued eBay.
The lawsuit demands that eBay now return all of the outstanding shares to Craigslist as well as a call for punitive damages and profits from the online advertising revenue.
eBay are positioned in the lawsuit as unwelcome minority investors who have abused their position, not only to pressure Craigslist to acquiese to a full acquisition by eBay, but also as planting spies in the form of their nominated director on Craigslist board.
The lawsuit names Josh Silverman, who was responsible for launching Craigslist competitor Kijiji, and his replacement eBay nominee Thomas Jeon, apparently responsible for Kijiji world wide competition policy. Craigslist contend the eBay used its position to gather competitive and proprietary information to divert traffic from Craigslist to eBay companies. This is inspite of the fact that in eBay’s lawsuit they complain that a replacement to the board for Silverman was never accepted.
Craigslist also complain that eBay used adverts on Google using the Craigslist name to direct traffic to Kijiji and eBay.
The question has to be asked if Craigslist were so unhappy with eBay as a shareholder why they have waited so long to sue them. Issuing a complaint and alleging eBay spied on Craigslist in an anticomptitive manner is something that should have occured back in the summer of 2007 if it was a concern.
Having taken steps which appear to have diluted eBays stake in the company and been sued, to then sue eBay alleging they’ve abused their shareholding smacks of tit for tat.
eBay reveal details of Craigslist suit
May 1, 2008
eBay have revealed some more details of their lawsuit against Craigslist. The full complaint is now available online, but the gist of the matter goes like this:
In 2004, one of Craigslist’s shareholders sold his 25.1% share to eBay. As part of that contract, it was agreed that if eBay ever set up a competitor to Craigslist, it would lose the “right of first refusal” to buy further Craigslist shares.
In 2005, eBay set up kijiji.com, a classified ads business, and in 2007, kijiji became available in the US. Craigslist duly notified eBay that this was competitive activity. Craigslist founder Craig Newmark and CEO Jim Buckmaster told Meg Whitman that they were no longer happy with eBay as a shareholder, and suggested that a new home be found for the shares which eBay held. Meg responded that eBay was happy with its investment, and would in fact like to buy the rest of the company whenever Newmark and Buckmaster felt that would be appropriate.
According to the complaint, Newmark and Buckmaster responded to this by holding “a series of clandestine meetings” to try to keep eBay’s representative off their board, and altered their corporate governance to protect them from an “unwelcome takeover”, adopting a ‘poison pill’ which prevents eBay from selling their shares to anyone not approved by the Craigslist board, and issuing extra shares which diluted eBay’s share of the company to below 25%, meaning that they lost the right to appoint a representative to the Craigslist board.
Craigslist’s blog says “we have an uncomfortably conflicted shareholder in our midst, one that is obsessed with dominating online classifieds for the purpose of maximizing its own profits”. Their response will be filed in the next few weeks.
The New York Times has a slightly longer summary of the complaint if you want more details.
Sued for leaving neutral feedback
April 24, 2008
eBay sellers have been getting pretty protective of their feedback in recent weeks. With search results’ order and even ability to list on the site now influenced by the feedback buyers leave, I was unsurprised - if a little depressed - to hear of one seller negging a buyer for not leaving four 5s on DSR stars. But now one American seller has gone a step further, trying to sue a buyer for leaving neutral feedback.
According to reports, the buyer had bought some silver dollars on eBay, which arrived poorly packed. Then it seems like the seller asked for feedback. The buyer left him a neutral, and was slapped with a $10,000 lawsuit. Though the judge threw the case out, the buyer was still left with a $500 legal bill for the attorney he’d had to hire.
King5.com’s report of the case says that the seller was prevented from leaving negative feedback for the buyer because of eBay’s rules: in fact, this new rule doesn’t kick in until next month. But I’ll predict that this will not be the last case of this kind that we’ll see from sellers desperate to protect their reputations and their livelihoods.
eBay UK business sellers must accept returned goods
April 11, 2008
eBay UK have just announced that from 1st May, business sellers must accept returned goods for fixed price items that are returned within 14 days of receipt. As eBay acknowledge, this goes beyond the legal minimum period of 7 working days after receipt, “so that the buyer has enough time to let the seller know about the cancellation and post the item back.”
It’s fantastic news that eBay are starting to enforce buyers’ legal rights and to stop sellers over-riding them, and should be welcomed as such by all legitimate sellers. In fact, by making sellers state a returns period, eBay do business sellers a favour: under the Distance Selling Regulations, sales which have not specified a different returns period default to giving buyers three months to change their mind.
But there’s still wiggle-room for the unscrupulous: eBay haven’t specified how a returns policy is to be communicated to buyers. Hiding it away in small print on a terms and conditions page is very different to having it advertised in the “returns policy” box on each listing, and eBay should have specified an expectation (if not a standardisation) of how sellers communicate this information.
The real bad news is that this applies to SIF listings as well as BIN, and so SIF listings which have made sales will need to be ended and relisted if they state a 7 day returns period. This is one time when eBay really should make it possible for all sellers to edit all their listings at the touch of a button.
As previously announced, from 1st May UK sellers will also need to provide their business name and geographic address on at least one of the view item page, about me page or a custom shop page no more than one click from the front of their shop.
Auction wrecker: “I hope they take me to court”
February 18, 2008
If one angry Manchester United fan has his way, an eBay seller will be taking him to court very shortly. Warrington man David Bonner bid £660,000 for one of the match programmes commemorating 50 years since the Munich air crash. Unsurprisingly, he won the auction. Now the seller has contacted him demanding payment. “He’s got no chance,” said the unapologetic bidder, “I hope they take me to court, because the sellers should be named and shamed.”
eBay had cancelled ten other bids placed by Mr Bonner on match programmes, each for £6,666,666. Quite why they wouldn’t have cancelled his account altogether, I can’t really work out: there are plenty of things on eBay that I object to, but that doesn’t give me the right to bid stupid amounts of money for them and then refuse to pay. Mr Bonner is clearly in breach of the User Agreement (”you will not … fail to pay for items purchased by you … [or] manipulate the price of any item or interfere with other users’ listings”); being so so spectacularly, publicly and unrepentently ought to get his account closed down.
But it would be an interesting court case, which might finally establish whether that mainstay of eBay trading “your bid is a binding contract” would actually stand up in law, and whether eBay auctions are actually auctions in the legal sense or not. If they are, then Mr Bonner has to pay up, but the Distance Selling Regulations won’t apply to eBay auctions, and sellers can refuse to accept the return of goods for change of mind.
It’s my opinion that the DSRs do apply to eBay auctions, because they’re not true auctions because the buyer doesn’t get to physically examine the goods. And I would expect that if ever the current legislation were found to exempt eBay from the DSRs, that legislation would be changed. Consumer protection legislators will be more concerned with the process by which the customer receives the goods, than the process by which the price was decided. And in that case it will be more important that the customer has bought at a distance, than that they bought via a bidding process. But I don’t know - it’s about time we had some case law, and Mr Bonner and his seller may be just the people to provide it for us.
Readdressing the address issue
February 4, 2008
Well, never has a post got out of date so quickly! No sooner had I pressed “post” on my previous entry than eBay UK made a new announcment about where sellers will have to display their addresses. A seller’s address will have to be displayed on at least one of the following:
- On the view item page but the information must be in the Business Seller Information section
- On the seller’s About Me page
- On a Shop’s custom page that is no more than one click from their main Shop page.
Yet again, it’s emphasised that this must be a geographic address; PO Boxes are not sufficient.
This is a great testament to the power of complaining 
Hats off to eBay for listening to their members.
Addressing the address issue
February 4, 2008
Judging from dozens of threads on eBay message boards, and the emails and IMs I’ve received this week, the most controversial change for eBay UK sellers is nothing to do with fees or feedback: it’s eBay’s decision that sellers’ addresses must be displayed on all listings.
Concerns about this new requirement have ranged from security - the entire world seeing where my stock is located - to personal safety - I’m home alone with my kids - to the practical - I’m not a shop so I don’t want buyers turning up on the doorstep. Few people are arguing that they’re unwilling to have their buyers know their address - just that they don’t want it accessible to all and sundry who happen to be browsing the eBay site.
I’ve yet to find one single ecommerce site that displays its geographical address on a item-listing page, or a checkout page: it is invariably put on an “about us” or “contact us” page - just like eBay’s own address.
Yet eBay say that displaying your address on your listings is a legal requirement under the Distance Selling Regulations, which say that
(a) provide to the consumer the following information -
(i) the identity of the supplier and, where the contract requires payment in advance, the supplier’s address;
….
(2) The supplier shall ensure that the information required by paragraph (1) is provided in a clear and comprehensible manner appropriate to the means of distance communication used,
“Prior to conclusion of the contract… in a clear and comprehensible manner…” Not “on the same webpage as the goods are advertised”. Not “forcing the customer to read your address before they click buy it now”. Just “in a clear and comprehensible manner”. So putting your details on your About ME page, or in an email after purchase, or even on an invoice in with the package should be perfectly adequate. So I thought, and so did many other sellers: I spoke to Trading Standards about this when the DSR first came out, and they agreed with me.
We’ve seen before that the Office of Fair Trading may be taking more of an interest in online auctions. In their PDF guide to online selling they explain in more detail exactly how they interpret the legislation, and what sellers need to do:
(i) Your identity including sufficient detail for the consumer to be
able to identify the business they are dealing with.
…
(vi) If payment is required in advance, you must supply your full geographic address [This applies before goods or services are received by the consumer.]
…
3.3 The pre-contractual information can be given by any method appropriate to the form of distance communication you are using to agree the contract, providing it is clear and comprehensible. For example, this information can:
be provided on a website if you sell goods or services over the internet.
…
3.10 If you provide pre-contractual information in a form that does not allow it to be stored or reproduced by the consumer, such as during a phone call or on a website, then you must confirm in writing, or in another durable medium available and accessible to the consumer,
the information given at paragraph 3.1(i) to (viii).
They have already defined “durable medium” in paragraph 1.6: websites are not durable media; printable emails, a letter, a fax or a brochure *are*.
I see nothing here that says that an address on an “about me” page is unacceptable. On the contrary, it seems pretty clear: address on your website (i.e. linked from where the customer’s buying), and provided by email or in a written format afterwards is the information flow the OFT are expecting.
But eBay at first insisted that addresses on listings was a done deal and would not be changed. But under absolutely relentless pressure from unhappy sellers, there is now a small hint that they may look again at this policy: eBay UK’s new MD, Mark Lewis has posted on the Q&A forum:
However, we have heard and we do understand the genuine security concerns of sellers who trade from their private residence. We are exploring ways to address these concerns without exposing our seller base to legal risk. We still plan to enforce appropriate address display by May, but we feel confident we can find a display solution that will be acceptable to the majority of sellers.
What’s your opinion? Are you happy for your address to be on your listings, or will that be the tipping point that sends you off-eBay?
OFT going after unregistered online traders?
January 27, 2008
This morning’s eBid newsletter contains this interesting little tidbit:
We’ve also added the choice of ‘Business’ and ‘Individual’ account types to ‘My Personal Details’ and in the new sign ups form. This is in conjunction with the Office of Fair Trading and allows sellers to state whether they are business traders or simply selling off some personal possessions. Business sellers, if you haven’t yet updated your details, you should do so now. This also allows buyers the ability to distinguish between private sellers and traders.
Does this mean the Office of Fair Trading is going after traders who represent themselves as private sellers online? We’ve heard a rumour from several sources that one of next week’s eBay changes will be that all Powersellers will have to register with the site as business sellers. There will apparently be fee advantages for doing so, but business sellers will also have to acknowledge and uphold their buyers’ rights.
In fact, if you are a trader, then it is illegal in the UK to represent yourself as a private seller: buyers have many more rights when buying online from businesses, so traders who pretend to be just private sellers may be depriving those buyers of their legal rights.
Making it obvious who is a business and who a private seller should be a great step forward in cleaning up the site. We’d also like to see a block on listings with the dreaded phrase “I am not responsible for items lost in the post”: after all, if eBay can block “cash”, swearing and some brand names, why not block this off-putting nonsense which is both illegal and - in the case of those who take PayPal - just not true?
Of course, none of this is much use if buyers don’t know what their rights are. For example, just a couple of weeks ago I had a buyer express complete incredulity that I would replace an item lost in the post: “I didn’t know sellers had to do that!!!” That’s why in February, we’ll be running a series of posts looking at exactly what buyers’ legal rights are when they buy on eBay. In the meantime, we’ll be awaiting the announcements from eBay Towers with bated breath.
News in briefs
December 21, 2007
Just a quickie for those following the eBay/Tiffany fight: Eric Goldman has posted highlights from the post-trial briefs from both companies. Top jaw-droppers: Tiffany sent nearly 135,000 take-down notices to eBay in 2006, and eBay receives five million take-down notices a year from its “top ten complainers”.
Court rules in favour of eBay
December 20, 2007
eBay have successfully defended a patent infringement suit against Netcraft. The case asserted PayPal infringed Netcraft’s “Internet Billing Method” however the case was dismissed as Netcraft’s patents concern Internet Access provision and as eBay are not an ISP there is no way the patents are applicable.
Any restriction in the use of PayPal in conjunction with eBay would be a catastrophe for the many businesses reliant on the sites for their main income source. eBay issued a statement saying “We are pleased by the Court’s well-reasoned ruling in this case. We will continue to protect the interests of our global community of users and the businesses who rely on eBay’s platforms to make a living.”
Judge upholds eBay’s $30m fine
December 13, 2007
A judge has upheld a US$30m fine against eBay for patent infringement. The move is the latest in eBay’s long-running legal battle with MercExchange, who claim to have invented Buy It Now. Back in 2003, a jury found in favour of ME and awarded them $35m in damages; eBay contested this and the award was reduced to $25m. With interest in the intervening period, this has now increased to $30m, but the case isn’t over yet: “we are disappointed with the court’s order and we plan to appeal it”, eBay said in a statement yesterday.
MercExchange have been trying for an injunction to stop eBay using Buy It Now altogether, presumably so that they could then license their “invention” back to eBay: a judge has previously said that ME have used their patents “as a sword to extract money”.
eBay sued for not pulling listings
December 6, 2007
Eric Goldman’s always interesting Technology and Marketing Law Blog has a revealing piece about eBay being sued for failing to remove listings from the site. The legal action began as Hansson, a dolls’ house furniture maker, versus Brower: Hansson claim that Brower are infringing their trademark with sales under the Hansson name on eBay. You’d think it was what Eric calls a “garden variety trademark enforcement action”.
But Hansson are also suing eBay. They claim that they sent 8 takedown notices plus a cease and desist letter to eBay: it’s not clear whether these were sent through eBay’s VeRO system or not. But apparently none of the legal notices were acted on, so they’ve added eBay to the case for contributory trademark infringement.
It seems there isn’t enough case law yet to predict whether eBay would be held liable in the case or not, but one has to wonder, as Eric does, “was it wise to drag eBay into this otherwise ordinary enforcement lawsuit? … [S]uing eBay ensures that a well-funded litigant with good lawyers will be on the defense side.” According to the prosecuting lawyer, “the goal was to get eBay to intervene”. I’m sure they’ve got eBay’s attention now.
eBay lobby for tougher e-theft penalties
December 6, 2007
eBay are to lobby the US government for tougher penalties for those who deal in stolen goods over the internet. They have hired LeClairRyan to lobby the federal government, according to a disclosure document posted by the Senate public records office. We wish them every success.
Auction regulator sues to close eBay France
December 4, 2007
The body which regulates French auction houses is taking legal action against eBay France, accusing it of breaking a law which requires all auctioneers to be regulated by the state. They accuse eBay failing to uphold rules which protect consumers and combat tax evasion and the sale of counterfeit or stolen goods.
eBay called the accusations “totally unfounded”. In a statement, they said “eBay’s activities and those of the auctioneers are totally separate, as stated by the law, and as we have regularly reminded the council since eBay started trading in France.”
The July 2000 law does make a distinction between online auctioneers, who sell the goods on behalf of their owners and are responsible for delivery to buyers, and online auction brokerages. The latter do not intervene between buyer and seller, and are largely unregulated except in the sale of “cultural products”, such as books, CDs and DVDs.
Last month the regulator took action against motors auction site Exlinea, which is currently “under maintenance”, and they are said to have two or three other sites under scrutiny.
“Uneconomical” to sue fakes’ sellers, says Tiffany CEO
November 20, 2007
Tiffany’s Chief Executive has given evidence in his company’s long-running lawsuit against eBay for the sale of counterfeit merchandise. Michael Kowalski said that the company has brought more than 600 actions costing US$14million over the past five years to protect its trademarks, and that they have sued four eBay vendors, but that to pursue every individual seller of counterfeit product was “simply uneconomical”.
At the heart of the case is the question of whose responsibility it is to police pirated designer goods being offered for sale on eBay. Bruce Rich, eBay’s lawyer, said that $14m was not very much for a company of Tiffany’s size to spend, and that they were “trying to shift the burden entirely to eBay”. Tiffany’s lawyer James Swire said “eBay overstates Tiffany’s obligation to police its marks. Tiffany is not shirking its responsibility.”
Court talks scents in trademark case
November 7, 2007
eBay have won their suit for trademark dilution against perfumebay.com. Three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court’s ruling from September 2005 that the similarity of the two domain names could encourage users to “disassociate the eBay mark with eBay’s services.” The site’s owners have been ordered to get a new name.
Jacquelyn Tran, CEO of Perfume Bay, insists that the name of her website is nothing to do with eBay: she told me in an email that she “envised [sic] a bay filled with ships carrying perfume from every corner of the world”. Ms Tran says that she will fight on: she has already filed an emergency stay of injunction to keep her domain name, and has vowed to take her case to the Supreme Court. I’m sure the publicity will garner her many, many more customers.
Cheap doesn’t indicate stolen, says German court
September 29, 2007
A German court yesterday overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of purchasing stolen goods on eBay. The 47-year old software engineer had previously been fined €1,200 for his 2005 purchase of a car navigation system which was subsequently found to have been stolen. The device was advertised as “brand new”, but was sold for less than a third of its normal retail price. The lower court had ruled that this should have indicated to the buyer that all was not as it should be, but the state court has now overruled his conviction as he could not have known the item was stolen.
Recent Forum Threads
- Help with a Trademark Violation Issue
- Stupid new eBay email system
- Making plans in case of emergency
- Ebay Account
- ME>YOUTUBE
- seen this?
- COLLAPSE OF FEEDBACK SYSTEM TRENDS FOR NEGATIVE POSITIVES
- Bargain DVDs at DVDSETPRO
- Seller meetup - London - 3rd Thursday of this month
- Ebay PowerSeller making a full time living, 4 years now
