Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Judge: eBay Not Liable For Fakes -- Journal 7 - July 27, 2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/14/ebay.tiffany.ap/index.html

Monday, July 14, a federal court judge ruled that eBay is not to be held liable for the sell of counterfeit Tiffany & Co. goods on its site. EBay is not responsible for monitoring trademarks on its goods, but individual companies are. It is not sufficient enough to say that eBay should be liable based on the sole knowledge that there may or may not be counterfeit items for sale on its auction site.

I agree with the court’s ruling about eBay not being held liable for counterfeit goods sold on its site. For a company who invests large amounts of capital in combating the sell of counterfeits, I would say they are doing their part. As eBay is set up as an auction site with millions of buyers and sellers, it would be hard to police every individual logged on. However, eBay tries. They spend tens of millions every year just to fight online counterfeiting. They also suspend and block users who are in violation of these terms. In 2007 alone, they blocked 50,000 sellers and blocked another 40,000 users from returning.

However, eBay has not always come out on top in this matter. Just last month, in June, a French court ruled that eBay pay Louis Vuitton, $61 million in damages for the sell of its counterfeit products online. The court claimed that eBay did not do enough to ensure that goods were genuine, because over 90 percent of Louis Vuitton goods sole through the auction site were counterfeit.

Although eBay is seeking to appeal the June 2008 ruling, the guidelines seem so distorted in this matter. Why is it that one judge holds individual companies liable for their own goods being counterfeited and another holds eBay liable? Yes, the lines are blurred on who is right and who is wrong here, but I believe it can only be combated through a joint effort. If both companies are genuinely trying to police the counterfeiters, why pour money into lawsuits? Would it not be more functional to use that money for a joint collaboration to combat counterfeiters instead?


Reference: http://www.nationaljewelernetwork.com/njn/content_display/high_volume/e3i5b79f51055d2eac9e53588e89f314515

No comments: