eBay Vows to Fight Following Overreach by LVMH

Chris @ TameBayOn 06.30.2008 at 5:07 pm Said:

@Sandi

I think you’re missing the point. If every manufacturer decided to be pig headed, follow LVMH, and limit the resale market of their goods it would pretty much wipe out most eBay sellers and a lot of off-eBay sellers as well.

And you can also forget the second hand market because none of the sellers of second hand goods (online or offline) wouldn’t be approved either

MechelleOn 06.30.2008 at 6:16 pm Said:

@Sandy

“I personally would never buy a name product on ebay, their reputation is not great.”

eBay’s reputation isn’t great? or are you saying that the sellers on eBay reputations are not great?

“The cpounterfeits have grown to the point they now outnumber the real items. I am not sure ebay will be able to fix it because they ignored it for so long”

are you speaking of the whole of eBay or particular categories?

Randy SmytheOn 06.30.2008 at 6:25 pm Said:

@Chris,

I know this judgement creates a slippery slope, and eBay will now have to restrict legitimate sellers of these items, but they’ve already been restricting sellers. The “New eBay” is all about control of the marketplace.

eBay could have “protected sellers” years ago before this lawsuit was even brought against them. The cost was just not worth it to them. They should have figured a $61 million judgement into their ROI calculation.

sandiOn 06.30.2008 at 6:37 pm Said:

on eBay I can attest to the fact that the high end designer accessories are swarming with people who are obsessed with status as it pertains to authenticity

Please didn’t lump us all togeher. I own the products you posted about, not one was purchased on ebay. Just a different perspective. I own one pait of sunglasses I paid 500.00 for 10 years ago. I own 2 purses I paid over 1000.00 bucks for a while back as well (one works for fall/winter, the other spring/summer).

Now perfume is my one personal vice so to speak, I know it is something I spend too much money on, but I think everyone probably has one thing they love and spend too much money on. If the lessor expensive brands smelled the same ALL day long, I would buy those instead, but they don’t. But I don’t run around with the label on my shirt, I select/wear perfume for me. I do sneek into stores an hour before closing time because its when they are least busy, spray and leave until I find the right new perfume:-) (for men, you can not really tell how any perfume smells with one spray)

I purchases designer names for 2 reasons, they tend to have a classic style that stays in style - and they last years. I hate to shop in stores, sunglasses specifically need to be bought in person. I will spend more on quality because it lasts longer - which means fewer shopping trips.

I have never posted on any designer board, have no intention.

That all said, I think it is appalling that persons who might not who might not really be able to afford a designer purse gets ripped off because ebay has allowed fakes to overtake genuine items.

sandiOn 06.30.2008 at 6:53 pm Said:

Mecehelle,

Unforunately I am speaking about alot of ebay. As someone who really does purchased 98% of everything online, I don’t find ebay a safe venue. I would buy from you, I would buy from Patricia, and several other regulars here because I have read your posts, and know you are an ethical and moral person.

I use to buy 30 books a month on ebay, printers, inks, art supplies, etc - all from the same sellers over and over. Those sellers did not lose me as a buyer, I just do not buy from them via ebay anymore.

Designer brands I would not buy on ebay because I simply don’t know enough to tell fakes from real - but I own real and know how long they will last so I prefer designer. I buy direct, actually that’s not quite true, I am 1/2 french, family send me “gifts”.

As someone who has seen clear policy violations and reported them and seen nothing done - sorry but that makes me afraid. How do rational, semi-intellect management think there would be no effect to their lack of actions?

I now look elsewhere before ebay and if I have to come to ebay, to be very honest I am always scared and I expect the worst if it is a new seller.

Don’t get me wrong, it is not sellers who caused this, it is ebay that caused this. How lomg did they think they could ignore reported problems and think normal everyday people would begin to visualize problems everywhere - real or imagined?

petewheatOn 06.30.2008 at 7:01 pm Said:

@ Sandi
I respect your right to spend your money any way you deem appropriate and I comprehend the quality aspect of longevity. I have heard these type of arguments from my well heeled and wanna-be affluent friends in the past. This general category is not what I consider a current eBay asset as the China syndrome of cheap imitated objects increase exponentially. That is why I think eBay should abandon this type of higher end cache item or create a separate site. The fact that people who cannot afford this type of “luxury” can be ripped off because of their desire to obtain “class and quality” is indeed sad. ref: Michael Jordan Nike shoes

sandiOn 06.30.2008 at 7:17 pm Said:

Randy Smythe, I just think trademark holders, manufacturers have rights greater than ebay wants to acknowledge. The reaity is, it is ebay who caused this.

If they opt to not allow them in the second market, one would think it would not be to their financial advantage down the road.

That said, I can fully understand why they took this step, I don’t think ebay left them any other option.

I realize my college age daughter would love to be able to buy a second hand designer bag (she knows I wear mine out to the pointshe would not want it and I am not buying her one, now her great grandmama might break down this year, who knows). But if she has to “suffer” to ensure someone’s brand is protected, so be it. Everybody doesn’t always get what they want afterall.

sandiOn 06.30.2008 at 7:29 pm Said:

I have heard these type of arguments from my well heeled and wanna-be affluent friends in the past.

Pretty please, don’t lump me in this group? I know people like that. If I came off as pretentious, not my intent. And I apologize. I am just one lucky person who worked hard, was in the right place at the right time and had a lot of luck.

I mean I literally have a total of 2 purses, one pair of sunglasses :-). The sunglasses were a fluke, I use to lose 10 pair of sunglasses a week, and I bought them at the dollar tree for a dollar a pair. One day my daughters & I were shopping and they talked me into sunglasses that cost way too much in my opinion.

I haven’t lost them yet. So in essence they saved me money in a dumb, stupid way. I live in constant fear of losing them now.

I fly coach unless I can get bumped to first class for free (company policy and my employees hate it - but I do it too). I even reuse tea bags

permacrisisOn 06.30.2008 at 7:53 pm Said:

Suppose a compromise were reached (settlement notwithstanding). What form would it take? What concessions or admissions would each side possibly have to offer?

These two parties have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do some creative negotiation, and possibly even set a legal precedent.

If ebay were going to turn over a ‘new’ new leaf, now might be the time to do it. They love to apply formulas to everything lately– this situation practically screams “formula.”

Sadly instead what’ll happen is, LVMH will get free listings and no FVF and get invited on board as the next ‘Buy’ and all other purse sellers get the boot maybe?

That’s a precedent nobody wants to see.

dimesOn 06.30.2008 at 7:58 pm Said:

@ Chris -
Your point: “We’re not talking dodgy knocked off products here. We’re talking about the right for you and me to have purchased and want to dispose (or perhaps for pro-sellers purchased specifically to resell) a product.” is well taken.

I agree that once purchased, people should be able to re-sell a product and am a little surprised that the EU hasn’t addressed this adequately yet (according to an earlier post by Richard about a ‘Call to Action’).

On the other hand, I can see where manufacturers are coming from in their efforts to limit the arbitrage that goes on with ‘parallel imports’ (the legalese for ‘grey market’), in which a volume of legit products are purchased cheaply in a market in which the price is low, and imported for sale to a more expensive territory, undercutting their own price in the more expensive market.

eBay’s limitation on the number of designer items that can be put up for sale by a single seller could take care of that issue on eBay if it used at least some form of ID verification beyond the IP level.

AmberOn 06.30.2008 at 9:12 pm Said:

Is it not the right of a manufacturuer to do everything in their power to protect their brand?

Nope. It isn’t. The First Sale Doctrine here in the US is quite clear. It started with books, but the interpretation has been expanded to include nearly all consumer items.

France and other countries do not have the same laws. The solution to me would be easy. Restrict the sales to those countries. Block them from appearing outside the home domain.

The problem is that there is a fine line between removing counterfeit items for sale (absolutely legal and needed) and restricting the trade of genuine used goods.

I doubt seriously Vuitton doesn’t want resale of their product

Sandi, for once I am on eBay’s side here (sort of)….I know you should probably circle the day in red, ’cause it will never happen again.

It is against the law in the US to restrict the flow of merchandise after the initial sale. Clearly, the EU has no such laws in place to protect resellers.

The high end manufacturers have been abusing the VeRO program for years. They’ve initiated unwarranted take downs of legitimate listings while doing nothing whatsoever to help fight the fakes. eBay should have done more–absolutely.

But this isn’t about fake handbags and other luxury items. This is about preventing the resale of their items because it cuts into their potential customer base. If you can’t buy it used, perhaps you’ll break down and buy it new from an authorized dealer. Used, the manufacturers get NONE of the secondary profits.

Authors and publishers here in the US have been trying to do the same thing with ebooks and software. I’m quite sure there will be a showdown about it sooner or later. I’ve personally read about more than one author accusing the used book market of taking sales (and thus contracts) away from authors. Violating their “intellectual property rights” and not compensating them for subsequent sales.

Sound familiar?

I’m sure counterfeits are harmful to a brand image. Ebay’s poor reputation makes it understandable that luxury brands would want distance from eBay. But I think the real issue comes down to money. They want a cut of the secondary market OR they want that market to just go away.

MechelleOn 06.30.2008 at 9:42 pm Said:

@Sandy

I understand exactly where you are coming from. This is an issue with many eBay members. The distrust of the site encompasses more than the counterfeits. New members most frequently, but more experienced as well are suspicious of the seller, the reliability of the description, and of course the authenticity of the product.

I have had an overall positive experience purchasing on eBay- after I had been burned a few times. I learned who to trust and who not to, but I had had a lot of transactions prior to the thieves so it didn’t scare me off from eBay. The unfortunate reality is many people are victims in their first few purchases and are likely not to return and if they do are very timid on making the purchase.

I have been asked if my product is real, if it is full size, does in come with the applicators, does it come with its box, can you please tell me sku and or product number…. All of these (other than the sku) are in the listing and the picture, but they need to be certain, and I don’t blame them, so they ask. It is clear that the overwhelming emotion of eBay members is of fear. The item could be fake, real but misrepresented, manipulative titles, hidden details and the list goes on. It is very sad and depressing that people are so uneasy shopping on eBay and that they suspect me for no other reason than where I have set up shop.

I am just at a loss in understanding why eBay has made shipping the culprit rather than fix the biggest and most insidious problem in the marketplace. I’ve never had a question about shipping other than if I combine for discount. No one has ever questioned me on my shipping fee, service, or anything else negatively. Shipping may be annoying but it is also the easiest thing for a buyer to control- if it is to much you shop some where else- easy. Is it real? who the hell knows, is it new? who the hell knows, is it broken? who knows !! You won’t know the answers to the questions until you have the product in your hand. Is the shipping $9.80- yep- ok I’ll go some where else. Unbelievable, where this company puts its money and effort.

With all the time effort and money into litigation - why not just solve the problem rather than try to defend it in court??

bonniOn 07.01.2008 at 1:19 am Said:

I love this bit: “… a businees model that restricts consumers choice through an anti-competitive business practice”

eBay doesn’t like that? So why are they trying to circumvent Australian trade laws by forcing everyone to use PayPal, a practice that the ACCC has found to be anti-competitive? I thought eBay believed that consumers weren’t smart enough to know what was good for them and letting them make choices was a bad thing? Or is it just Australian consumers who aren’t smart enough to know we should use PayPal?

Pot. Kettle. Black. eBay. Clueless.

sandiOn 07.01.2008 at 7:13 am Said:

Amber, my primary point is any manufacturer has the right to protect the value of it’s product and name. These companies have spent billion to create a brand, to create the illusion of superior products. ebay has smeared their names. That is what this is about more than anything. These companies what to protect their brand. ebay failed to work with them, assist them, heck they invited the chinese bootleggers to come through the front door for goodness sakes.

Let’s keep in mind they did not take ebay to court year one, they tried to work with ebay, when the site had more fakes than real, only then did they go to court. ebay got what it deserved.

ebay has a proven track record of simply not caring about fakes/counterfeits.

I seriously doubt Tiffany, Rolex, Dior, Vitton, etc want to stop the resale of their items in legitimate methods.

ebay dropped the ball. And as usual they are blaming the other guy. ebay is simply doing the smoke and mirror trick using designer brands as tje bad guy, when ion fact ebay is the bad guy in all of this.

Mechelle, it is time ebay walked the talk. As long as I can find clear policy violations on listings and take the time to report them and discover ebay does nothing - they have zero credibility about anything.

Randy SmytheOn 07.01.2008 at 8:06 am Said:

@Amber,
Regardless of the First Sale doctrine, it is still the right of a manufacturer to protect their brand, LVMH is just doing what eBay and other corporations do on a daily basis. Sure the French Court should have limited this to counterfeit items only, but had eBay taken care of these issues way back when or even negotiated with LVMH on a solution we wouldn’t be where we are.

This will certainly require eBay to be more restrictive, but they were heading that way anyway. This judgment won’t kill the secondary market in the US because of First Sale, but it may take a hit in those countries that do not have a similar doctrine.

eBay is only “protecting sellers” in this instance because it suits their corporate interest.

Here’s the problem with huge corporations who take advantage of their size and power, eventually regulators and courts start ruling against them and once there is blood in the water, all the sharks come calling.

Had eBay just added the concept of “should” to their ROI calculations the regulators and courts would still be at bay.

The concept of “should” comes from the well known philosopher Jeff Goldblum in the movie Jurassic Park; “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”

There are natural laws that regulate the “should” in life – Karma!

Just my 12%