eBay Vows to Fight Following Overreach by LVMH

Patricia1On 07.01.2008 at 9:19 am Said:

Ebay hardly ever thinks of “should” where there are fees involved

DeeOn 07.01.2008 at 9:21 am Said:

@Randy Smythe,

Love your post. Especially the line:

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

That’s the bottom line and ebay can spin, spin, spin all they want too. Karma is here to bite them in the…

Bring on the sharks!

dimesOn 07.01.2008 at 9:32 am Said:

Interesting article today on Forbes about a former eBay seller who has moved on to create his own auction site for luxury item resale. The authentication process it uses sounds pretty intense, but at an average selling price of $2000 it better be.

http://tinyurl.com/3en4pt

AmberOn 07.01.2008 at 9:46 am Said:

Oh I never claimed that eBay was motivated by anything but self interest.

Ebay never does anything for altruistic reasons. Ever.

I’m well aware of that.

BUT I honestly do see this as anti-competitive (again, not I’m blind to the hypocrisy on eBay’s part)

From what I’ve gleaned, secondary markets would be limited to “authorized resellers” only. Meaning that those brands will get a cut of the secondary or tertiary sales.

Sure, some of this is about image, but bottom line–it is about the $.

Companies have legal rights to protect their brands. This includes making sure that all references to their products in print include the appropriate designations. TM for trademark, © for copyright, ® etc
It means making sure that their brand does not get turned into a catch-all generic term for those types of products. Coke, Band Aid, Kleenex etc have all fought those battles…largely without success.

What companies DO NOT have the right to do is to dictate what happens to their purchases after they’ve been paid for them. At least not here in the US. The EU should protect consumers instead of big business on this one. In a free market, luxury brands will flourish by making a superior product, not trying to limit the legit sale of preowned items.

petewheatOn 07.01.2008 at 9:47 am Said:

@Sandi
O.K. you’re off the hook. Actually, I can relate to the guilt about all this. I think I am most appalled not by having a few of these things, but the sheer quantity some people require.

Randy SmytheOn 07.01.2008 at 10:47 am Said:

@Amber,

I do agree with you, but think this case is much more about corporate responsibility.

I want eBay to fight for sellers, but they should have done it years ago by spending the money to stop the fakes, not now by playing the victim.

At some point you have to say, you made your bed …

TonyOn 07.01.2008 at 10:59 am Said:

I don’t know where this idea that Europe doesn’t have similar laws to first sale doctrine has come from. Europe is a bit restrictive in the sense that I can be prevented from buying items outside the European union for sale within it when the trademark holder themself object, but if I buy the item within the European union, then I have every right to sell it, except in exceptional circumstances.

Now what sort of exceptional circumstances might exist? Well counterfeits galore being sold in the same place I’m selling my genuine product may well lead to a judgement saying the brand is being damaged. Which seems to be why these companies have gone down this route, but it is about restricting trade too and ebay’s appeal should focus on the aspect that this judgement restricts the free movement of goods and services within the European union, because there are existing laws to prevent such restrictive practices.

sandiOn 07.01.2008 at 11:30 am Said:

I am not sure everyone is aware how this is being reported outside “ebay spin”. But it really is about counterfeits more than anything. This just happened to be the law that allowed ebay to be taken to task. I did translate it to english, the report was from the fashion industry news:

Vuitton Wins Ebay Ruling

A French court ordered eBay to pay the luxury goods giant around 40 million euros, or $63.2 million at current exchange, for selling counterfeit items on its online auction site, and for selling genuine products outside their desired retail channel.

As you can see the real focus is on the counterfeits, just as Tiffany and Rolex similiar suits previously.

sandiOn 07.01.2008 at 12:17 pm Said:

Mechelle I have had an overall positive experience purchasing on eBay- after I had been burned a few times.

In all honesty I have only had one bad buying experience, but I am anal and read the help pages and answer center before making my first bid. I actually read the seller’s feedback before bidding as well. The ironic thing is my one bad buying experience was with one of those sellers with a “proven track record” - the ones ebay brags about - he did not send me my items, and when I filed a claim with paypal he sent me an empty envelope.

There are 7 or 8 sellers who my initial contact/purchase was on ebay. I was so happy with quality, price and service I still do business with them outside ebay. There are many other sellers who also would get my repeat business if I purchased liked items again. My experience with sellers as been excellent with the one exception. I have over 2000 feedback from sellers so I know no matter what ebay wants to claim, sellers were not the issue.

Even shipping has never been an issue for me. I can do math, I have free will. I have the option of not buying if I feel the price is too high. I am an adult.

I would be lying if I said I stopped buying from ebay because of “trust” per se. I quit buying from ebay whenever possible because ebay has exposed itself as an unethical company.

If they can treat their sellers in the manner they have, there is no reason to believe they would tre4at buyers any different. I have a choice who I give my money too. I don’t buy GE products, I dont’ support ebay, etc.

That said, there are items I would never, ever buy on ebay, and designer goods are one. That is directly tied to my lack of trust in ebay, not sellers. It is no secret ebay really does othing to protect its buyers.

LisaOn 07.01.2008 at 2:27 pm Said:

I can’t even get my head around this. LV, Dior, Chanel, et al, think they walk on water. Hermes turned Oprah away, for crying out loud. This is about stuff. It’s so ridiculous. But Ebay had no problem taking a big chunk of the fees when the stuff was listed and sold.

sandiOn 07.01.2008 at 4:19 pm Said:

@lisa

I can’t even get my head around this. LV, Dior, Chanel, et al, think they walk on water. But Ebay had no problem taking a big chunk of the fees when the stuff was listed and sold.

The issue is that ebay had no problem taking big chunks of the fees on counterfeit goods - which first off is illegal, second it is stealing from the buyer who thinks they are safe buying on ebay, finally the brands who are not only experiencing a financial loss when this occurrs, but having their brand devalued.

Let’s put it in more personal perspective, let’s say there is a lisa in your town, same last name. She writes bad checks all over town, she has sticky fingers and does a bit of shopp;ifting as well.

Everyone is talking about that Lisa the thief - you would not like it, no one would. The other Lisa is soiling your reputation. The other Lisa is making your morals and ethicas being question - yet you have done nothing wrong. How would you protect yourself against something like that? If you had the money, you would sue the other Lisa for damages to your character (if such laws are allowed).

Whether you agree with the high end brands price structure, you surely understand them wanting to protect their name and brand. Some of these companies have spent millions to create their brands, they have stockholders who they are accountable to. They have simply taken ebay to court to protect their brand because ebay failed repeatedly to police their site. ebay had fair warning, this isn’t the first lawsuit they have lost over this, and since the last lawsuit, nothing changed.

The fine should have been bigger, say equal to all the management’s bonus packages - including Meg’s.

AmberOn 07.01.2008 at 4:57 pm Said:

and for selling genuine products outside their desired retail channel.

That right there shows it isn’t just about counterfeits. I have zero problems with eBay getting slapped hard for their negligence. They deserve it–in karma points if nothing else.

But I don’t think the ruling stayed within the bounds of counterfeits.

This is from CNN Money:

The court also ruled that eBay was responsible for the “illicit sale” of perfumes from the LVMH empire, which can be sold only through the brands’ “selective distribution networks.”

Again, it’s about a manufacturer trying to control ALL market aspects of its products–including secondary and tertiary markets. Which is ILLEGAL. I understand the counterfeit issue. I agree completely that eBay failed to do enough. BUT, LVMH isn’t just after the fakes. It’s after the genuine items that are being legally resold. That’s wrong.

They won this one: you can bet they’ll go after the small fry next. And I, too, question the % of fake vs. genuine items on the site. It sounds a little too much like eBay math to me. Pick a number then find the “facts” to support it.

I don’t blame the company for wanting to distance itself from a site buried in fraud. But I do blame them for also going after the honest sellers who are selling genuine items. It’s a bully mentality, and quite frankly, I’ve seen enough of that from eBay itself lately.

AudreyOn 07.01.2008 at 7:05 pm Said:

Sandi,
I completely agreed with you. Ebay has done a lousy job of policing their sites of fake merchandise. Great Example: Teacher edition of books, manuals, keys, quizzes, etc. aren’t suppose to be sold on ebay, but I promise you that you can go online now and pull up thousands that are in violation. I too have reported and let items set in my watch folder just to see if they would take it off. They did nothing. Sorry, but I don’t feel sorry for ebay. I won’t be shocked if this doesn’t get printed. Just don’t think much of ebay anymore.

Patricia1On 07.01.2008 at 7:51 pm Said:

I know when I create a painting I don’t want to see it reproduced and sold cheaply on Ebay. On don’t want someone else profiting on my creation. I whole-heartedly agree with these manufacturers. Ebay took the fees and FVF’s for fraudulent goods. In my mind taking a percentage of the sale price “partnered” them with the fraudulent seller. I feel its right that they have to make restitution.

dimesOn 07.02.2008 at 7:44 am Said:

This is just part of the story.

Go to auctionbytes and read the article about what happens to fake merchandise that gets returned to paypal.