Quote:
Originally Posted by teedon
(Post 180832)
The Verified Rights Owner (VeRO). So the answer should be counterfeit, illegal, or otherwise unauthorised items.
|
Exactly. Many people use these terms interchangably. But they are not the same thing.
Vero is specific to eBay, it is a program they have in place so that copyright and trademark owners can report items they suspect are counterfeit.
In many cases, a Vero member might file a complaint against a seller, but the item is actually legitimate. There is, after all, only so much you can tell from a picture.
That causes a lot of problems for sellers who sell legitimate name-brand items.
And the system is open to abuse, especially by trademark owners.
This is all laid out in the Digiltal Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It gives copyright and trademark owners the right to have an item removed from a website (not only eBay) if they suspect an item is ⊗⊗⊗⊗. They file a "takedown notice" with the website owner, who has no choice but to comply.
Now here is where it gets screwey...
If your item is removed because of a claim of COPYRIGHT infringement, the DMCA allows you to file a "counter-notice" with the owner of a website. The notice states that the item is real, authorized and 100% legitimate. The copyright owner then has a certain period of time to either back down from the claim or file a lawsuit against the seller in federal court. After that time expires, the website owner can put the listing back up.
However, if the claim against you is TRADEMARK infringement, there is NO counter-notice procedure in place. You are at the mercy of the Vero member.
eBay, in ALL cases, would prefer that sellers work out their differences with the Vero members. And some Vero members will give sellers the opportunity to convince them the item in question is authentic. They may ask for specific photos, serial numbers, receipts, supplier information, etc.
But they don't HAVE TO allow the seller that opportunity, especially if the claim was for TRADEMARK infringement. That is the part that invites abuse.
Some brands - Burberry comes to mind - have publicly stated they would prefer their merchandise never ended up on eBay PERIOD and their decisions are final and cannot be appealed.
This contradicts the "First Sale Doctrine" which gives sellers the right to sell AUTHENTIC merchandise they have purchased on the secondary market without fear of running afoul of copyright and trademark laws.
So, which one applies? The DMCA or the First Sale Doctine? Who knows? One day the issue will be decided by a court. Or Congress could put a counter-notice provision for accusations of TRADEMARK infringement into the DMCA. That could take years. Until then, expect that all websites will most likely do what is required under the DMCA to avoid being sued.
