PayPal account has been limited due to claim a court order

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

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.

How do you deny involvement tho? What is your argument for getting deposits from the accounts? Not trying to argue, btw, I’m generally curious what kind of defense is even feasible here.

[Yasav]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

How do you deny involvement tho? What is your argument for getting deposits from the accounts? Not trying to argue, btw, I’m generally curious what kind of defense is even feasible here.

I assume that the person would admit receiving deposits from somebody and argue no involvement, no personal knowledge, etc. It's my understanding that technically the account holder doesn't even have to explain why or for what purpose he received the deposits, as from the legal standpoint, only the person who make the offer to sell and/or sold is liable; and if the bank account owner denies being that person, then plaintiff would have to explore other venues to prove him wrong. All that, no doubt, would be extremely costly for the plaintiff and would almost certainly become at least a year long lawsuit.

IMHO, if I were the brand owner, I would abandon the case if the person stopped selling my stuff. Most of those judgments go unpaid, and the only powerful thing for me as a brand owner would be the injunction. Most cases that I read in my spare time involved regular Joes who unknowingly sold items from their bedroom. IMHO going after such people is wrong; it's like saying I can't attack the real guy, so I am gonna focus on a few Joes selling out of their bedroom and extort them for thousands. Most often that not, in 90% of the cases, a simple letter (C&D) would be sufficient to stop such activity. For repeat offenders, a lawsuit would be necessary. Ultimately, it's a loosing battle though; you shut down 1 guy, then 10 more pop up.

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by Yasav

I assume that the person would admit receiving deposits from somebody and argue no involvement, no personal knowledge, etc. It's my understanding that technically the account holder doesn't even have to explain why or for what purpose he received the deposits, as from the legal standpoint, only the person who make the offer to sell and/or sold is liable; and if the bank account owner denies being that person, then plaintiff would have to explore other venues to prove him wrong. All that, no doubt, would be extremely costly for the plaintiff and would almost certainly become at least a year long lawsuit.

IMHO, if I were the brand owner, I would abandon the case if the person stopped selling my stuff. Most of those judgments go unpaid, and the only powerful thing for me as a brand owner would be the injunction. Most cases that I read in my spare time involved regular Joes who unknowingly sold items from their bedroom. IMHO going after such people is wrong; it's like saying I can't attack the real guy, so I am gonna focus on a few Joes selling out of their bedroom and extort them for thousands. Most often that not, in 90% of the cases, a simple letter (C&D) would be sufficient to stop such activity. For repeat offenders, a lawsuit would be necessary. Ultimately, it's a loosing battle though; you shut down 1 guy, then 10 more pop up.

Acting under stealth, if the info they gave to PayPal is false it’s going to be easy to prove that they are the one receiving the payments. If they claim they were getting the deposits for someone else, there’s still liability plus they’d have to supply who so you’re back to them being liable.

You’d be surprised how much those small sellers have. Plus you can lien property and bank accounts until the debts are paid - or if you just force their pathetic selves into bankruptcy you can take unexempt property or ruin them. Some are innocently selling items, most know what they are doing and deserve everything they get. For every item some random dude on eBay sells that isn’t authorized by me or whatever company you want to insert, is food off my table and I don’t put up with it. I only go after those who have sold at least a few hundred items, 1 or 2 isn’t worth the attorney fees, but everyone else is gonna get my counsel on them. I literally spend a third my income on my counsel right now getting all my patents and works registered so I can stop losing money. I have no sympathy for anyone who gets destroyed for selling foo items.

[BiN4RY]

Gladiator I'm curious about your line of work. Roughly speaking, what trades/field does your patents/IPs and products fall under?

[rsot]

Originally Posted by GreenBean

This poster has not been online. There will not be a reply.

Love it

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

Gladiator I'm curious about your line of work. Roughly speaking, what trades/field does your patents/IPs and products fall under?

I do graphic design and have some tech patents for software. I mostly sell my art on clothing, but I have other branches of my business like paper products and novelty gift items. I also have licenses for works with some large brands and have the exclusive reproductive rights of those designs for the brands too. I’d say 80% of my day is spent doing crafts and art for my business or pleasure.

[GreenBean]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

I do graphic design and have some tech patents for software. I mostly sell my art on clothing, but I have other branches of my business like paper products and novelty gift items. I also have licenses for works with some large brands and have the exclusive reproductive rights of those designs for the brands too. I’d say 80% of my day is spent doing crafts and art for my business or pleasure.

I perceive your attaching copyrights to your items as a wise move.

There are too many out there that will “take” without a care for you.

[ebaystealth1974]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

I only go after those who have sold at least a few hundred items, 1 or 2 isn’t worth the attorney fees, but everyone else is gonna get my counsel on them.

Do you warn them first, or is it just BAM... lawsuit!

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by ebaystealth1974

Do you warn them first, or is it just BAM... lawsuit!

I send in IP or DMCA claims first via my counsel. If they continue to sell or have sold a large, excessive amount they get sued eventually.

[H4ck]

Originally Posted by JamesLee

There is $1400 on hold in the paypal...
I am wondering if I would add another paypal to this ebay account which is running good so far.

..............

step away from the paypal account.......and step away from the ebay account..........

[iceman420]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

How do you deny involvement tho? What is your argument for getting deposits from the accounts? Not trying to argue, btw, I’m generally curious what kind of defense is even feasible here.

stolen identities happen all the time, people have multiple banks accounts, sometimes a few of them and they aren't watched. therefore if one was compromised the thief could deposit there and the true owner wouldn't know

[Gladiator]

Originally Posted by iceman420

stolen identities happen all the time, people have multiple banks accounts, sometimes a few of them and they aren't watched. therefore if one was compromised the thief could deposit there and the true owner wouldn't know

Eh, that's still going to be a very unusual circumstance.