PayPal account has been limited due to claim a court order

[dragonfly123]

Originally Posted by offset

Have seen this before.
The most likely it's scam email and sender of email is not even PayPal.

It is PayPal because when logging into the account, there is limitation to the account. Funds can not be transfer or whatsoever.

[noskillnoway]

I thought PayPal couldn't not see your real bank info

[dragonfly123]

The issue now is that the money in paypal limitation was not withdrawn to my bank. And I don't know if I should ship the item to the customers. There are about 5-6 orders that didn't ship yet. Should I just ask the customer to dispute their charges for non-receipt? Because I don't want to ship and loss the cost of that item if PayPal is going to hold my money.

[rsot]

Originally Posted by noskillnoway

I thought PayPal couldn't not see your real bank info

They cannot in general unless 1) you upload funds from bank to PP or 2) they get subpoena to see true bank info

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by rsot

They cannot in general unless 1) you upload funds from bank to PP or 2) they get subpoena to see true bank info

Bank won't release such info unless the plaintiff notifies the "real" person first, which is next to impossible if it was all stealth.

under Code of Civil Procedure §1985.3(a)(1). The statute requires that you be served with a copy of each subpoena and each Notice to Consumer (Judicial Council Form SUBP-025) at least five days before the subpoena is served on the bank (CCP § 1985.1(b)(3)) and at least 10 days before the return date specified in the subpoena (CCP § 1985.3(b)(2))

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by noskillnoway

I thought PayPal couldn't not see your real bank info

This probably has little to do with bank account anymore.

The IP holder most likely sent out a secret shopper, bought a counterfeit item from OP, and went to court with it saying the item was purchased from "eBay/Paypal Seller X". The court then contacted eBay/Paypal to freeze the account of Seller X and disclose all financial information they have for further investigation.

This is just my educated guess.

[Yasav]

I am not a lawyer but I think that technically OP is not on the hook for anything until he starts receiving certified mail for this case. If OP goes to a lawyer now, no doubt his lawyer would want to settle this. But if there's truly nothing that can connect his real self to his stealth account, I wouldn't worry. Technically you don't need a lawyer until you get served.

PP cannot see who's the owner from the bank account. Plaintiff would need to serve subpoenas on the bank; and banks are governed by much stricter rules than EB/PP. According to rules, plaintiff would need to serve the real account holder 5 days before issuing subpoena on the bank. But in this case, plaintiff doesn't know who is the real account holder, so I think this is a dead end.

Also, just because OP's bank info is attached to that PP doesn't necessarily mean that he responsible for the whole thing. In copyright and IP cases, plaintiff sues the individual (or corporate) who "made offer to sell, and/or sold" the infringing items. If let's say OP received deposits from an account that did infringe IP properties, that doesn't really mean that he himself made offers to sell or sold the items; IMHO that's stretching things too much. If plaintiff decides to go that route, then they would need to somehow convince the court that the person behind the account is actually the one who actually sold items.

Again, this is not legal advice and I am not an attorney. Just expressing my thoughts based on recent research

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

Bank won't release such info unless the plaintiff notifies the "real" person first, which is next to impossible if it was all stealth.

under Code of Civil Procedure §1985.3(a)(1). The statute requires that you be served with a copy of each subpoena and each Notice to Consumer (Judicial Council Form SUBP-025) at least five days before the subpoena is served on the bank (CCP § 1985.1(b)(3)) and at least 10 days before the return date specified in the subpoena (CCP § 1985.3(b)(2))

That looks like state code. Infringement and Counterfeiting are typically Federal Crimes and there is no right to notice.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

That looks like state code. Infringement and Counterfeiting are typically Federal Crimes and there is no right to notice.

Yes, but the OP is not in a criminal trial, he is in a civil case, so the rules of civil procedure must apply, regardless of the nature of the suit.

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

Yes, but the OP is not in a criminal trial, he is in a civil case, so the rules of civil procedure must apply, regardless of the nature of the suit.

Which is still more than likely a Federal issue as copyrights and trademarks are governed by Federal law. Let’s just say from my own experience suing sellers for infringing on my registered works (trademarks, patents, copyrights) that they are not entitled to notice when a court grants a subpoena for records, bank statements, purchases from vendors, etc. I have seen that some parties have filed to quash the subpoena, most just give the info requested up and it’s used during discovery and settlements.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Which is still more than likely a Federal issue as copyrights and trademarks are governed by Federal law. Let’s just say from my own experience suing sellers for infringing on my registered works (trademarks, patents, copyrights) that they are not entitled to notice when a court grants a subpoena for records, bank statements, purchases from vendors, etc. I have seen that some parties have filed to quash the subpoena, most just give the info requested up and it’s used during discovery and settlements.

One thing is to subpoena the bank where you know the person, another thing is when you don't know who exactly are you up against. Even if the bank complies, how would plaintiff make the argument that the owner of the bank account is the actually the one who made an offer to sell? If theoretically I receive deposits from some Joe Smith, does it mean I am responsible for how that Joe Smith made his money?

[phaz0rz]

Originally Posted by Yasav

One thing is to subpoena the bank where you know the person, another thing is when you don't know who exactly are you up against. Even if the bank complies, how would plaintiff make the argument that the owner of the bank account is the actually the one who made an offer to sell? If theoretically I receive deposits from some Joe Smith, does it mean I am responsible for how that Joe Smith made his money?

Interesting point

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

One thing is to subpoena the bank where you know the person, another thing is when you don't know who exactly are you up against. Even if the bank complies, how would plaintiff make the argument that the owner of the bank account is the actually the one who made an offer to sell? If theoretically I receive deposits from some Joe Smith, does it mean I am responsible for how that Joe Smith made his money?

That’s what discovery is for. I have had many “John Doe” defendants and my counsel requested eBay/Amazon/Etsy/etc to turn over their records, which led to turn overs of PayPal’s and merchant account info to find the people behind the stores. It’s very common in infringement litigation.

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by Yasav

Even if the bank complies, how would plaintiff make the argument that the owner of the bank account is the actually the one who made an offer to sell? If theoretically I receive deposits from some Joe Smith, does it mean I am responsible for how that Joe Smith made his money?

Your bank account was attached to a Paypal account belong to "Joe Smith", and it was used to sell counterfeits. You are most definitely responsible, especially if the funds were withdrawn to your bank account. The bank account holder is responsible for all transactions going through it.

Although the court can't rule you guilty simply based on this right away, but you are immediately the prime suspect, and you WILL be asked to explain why your bank account was attached to the accused's Paypal account and been withdrawing funds from it. Good luck coming up with any verifiable BS at this point.

The thing about copyright/trademark infringement is that the court grants the IP holders a scary amount of power to discover for their cases even if the defendant is not known. Compared to a lot of other common cases (eg, civil cases for debt), they often won't even bother granting you a case if you cant' come up with a proper identity of the accused. Copyright infringements (especially selling brand name counterfeits) is something you do not want to mess around with.

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

Your bank account was attached to a Paypal account belong to "Joe Smith", and it was used to sell counterfeits. You are most definitely responsible, especially if the funds were withdrawn to your bank account. You, as the bank account holder, is responsible for all transactions going through it.

Although the court can't rule you guilty simply based on this right away, but you are immediately the prime suspect, and you WILL be asked to explain why your bank account was attached to the accused's Paypal account and been withdrawing funds from it. Good luck coming up with any BS at this point.

I had a guy pull something similar. Lied about living at the address where the items were being sent from, land records literally had him as the property owner. Him and his counsel swore to high heaven they had no knowledge of the address and only wanted to settle after the land records were bought from the county recorder to show he in fact owned the property in question. People are stupid and will try anything.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

I had a guy pull something similar. Lied about living at the address where the items were being sent from, land records literally had him as the property owner. Him and his counsel swore to high heaven they had no knowledge of the address and only wanted to settle after the land records were bought from the county recorder to show he in fact owned the property in question. People are stupid and will try anything.

Doesn't sound like proper stealth to me.

[GreenBean]

Originally Posted by Yasav

Doesn't sound like proper stealth to me.

Not everyone doing ecommerce does stealth.

From the posts, this is not a stealther but an idiot abusing Gladiator’s IP copyright rights..

Appears person being sued and Attorney assumed too much.

Win for the good people !

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

Your bank account was attached to a Paypal account belong to "Joe Smith", and it was used to sell counterfeits. You are most definitely responsible, especially if the funds were withdrawn to your bank account. The bank account holder is responsible for all transactions going through it.

Although the court can't rule you guilty simply based on this right away, but you are immediately the prime suspect, and you WILL be asked to explain why your bank account was attached to the accused's Paypal account and been withdrawing funds from it. Good luck coming up with any verifiable BS at this point.

The thing about copyright/trademark infringement is that the court grants the IP holders a scary amount of power to discover for their cases even if the defendant is not known. Compared to a lot of other common cases (eg, civil cases for debt), they often won't even bother granting you a case if you cant' come up with a proper identity of the accused. Copyright infringements (especially selling brand name counterfeits) is something you do not want to mess around with.

You would be the prime suspect but if the owner of the bank account denies everything, I don't see what else could the plaintiff do, provided that it's their only lead. It's my guess that they would have to come up with additional proof that would link the bank account holder to the EB activities; how they proceed further would depend on the specific facts of the case, as every case is different in some regard.

That's is correct. Also, to note the majority of these cases have been filed in California, as they have a huge nationwide venue for IP cases over there. In this case, the OP's case is in Virginia, which is definitely odd to say the least. Nevertheless, if I were in his shoes, I would keep silence until (or if) served.

The easiest and best solution (besides to no sell foo-foos) for those newbies who are involved in such cases is to simply settle, especially if the case involves a minimal amount of sales. More often than not, if you tell the plaintiff how much you sold, where did you buy it from, they would just settle for a nominal amount and you'll be off the hook for good.

As always, not a legal advice and I am not a lawyer so take everything I say with a grain of salt

[GreenBean]

Yasav

If a person is being sued, there is often a big case against them, the bank account is one link. Dont forget the seller of the foo foo. Info will be available from them from Customs.

A chain making a link exists for prosecution to happen.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by GreenBean

Yasav

If a person is being sued, there is often a big case against them, the bank account is one link. Dont forget the seller of the foo foo. Info will be available from them from Customs.

A chain making a link exists for prosecution to happen.

Seizure letters? That's true. Oftentimes such cases were started when a brand owner got a report from the customs about a seizure.

Recently read a case where 3-4 individuals got sued by Audi, after customs informed Audi that $150,000 worth of knock-off Audi front grills were seized at the LA port.

And ironically, those grills are still offered for sale on EB by those alleged individuals.

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

Doesn't sound like proper stealth to me.

It wasn’t a stealth account, just an idiot trying to excuse his way out of selling my products.


Doesn’t matter for stealth circumstances tho.The bank account has their real name on it most of the time. Pleading ignorance, as you suggested in another post, won’t help you. You’re not going to get far if your name is accepting deposits of money that’s directly related to illegal sales.

Otherwise money laundering and others doing shady stuff would use the same excuse.” Drug money was ran through my laundry mat accounts? Well you don’t say, that’s the damndest thing...” sounds stupid here and is stupid for stealthers. You’re linked, you got caught, pay up and be glad it’s civil and not criminal.

As before, I say this with experience with people running shops and being sued, it’s taken getting PayPal and bank info to find the real owners but once a real name is linked you got to defend against the infringement. It’s a free country and you can argue no knowledge but it isn’t going to work with most judges.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

It wasn’t a stealth account, just an idiot trying to excuse his way out of selling my products.


Doesn’t matter for stealth circumstances tho.The bank account has their real name on it most of the time. Pleading ignorance, as you suggested in another post, won’t help you. You’re not going to get far if your name is accepting deposits of money that’s directly related to illegal sales.

Otherwise money laundering and others doing shady stuff would use the same excuse.” Drug money was ran through my laundry mat accounts? Well you don’t say, that’s the damndest thing...” sounds stupid here and is stupid for stealthers. You’re linked, you got caught, pay up and be glad it’s civil and not criminal.

As before, I say this with experience with people running shops and being sued, it’s taken getting PayPal and bank info to find the real owners but once a real name is linked you got to defend against the infringement. It’s a free country and you can argue no knowledge but it isn’t going to work with most judges.

True, you would still have to argue and come up with a defense but at least you have a fairly legitimate venue to defend it (claim nothing to do with EB, simply received deposits from X for this this reason), whereas most IP cases involving EB have almost no possible defenses. And it's not really what's obvious to us, it's more of what can be proven. Though a civil case, the burden of proof still has to be met. IMHO having the sole lead of a bank account - and if the person denies everything - isn't going to be enough to convince a judge for a 6-figure judgement, although I could be wrong. People who have such types of accounts are most likely experienced and won't simply surrender their a$$ to a lawyer for a 100K judgement.