More Disappointing Stats On Mobile Video

Another Misuse Of Trademark Law To Prevent Competition

from the just-what-we-needed dept

Tue, Apr 25th 2006 11:56am — Mike Masnick

Gregory A. Beck of Public Citizen writes in to let us know "Public Citizen Litigation Group filed suit yesterday against Dymo Corporation, a company that makes label printers. Our client is a small eBay seller named Rip Mohl, who sells printer labels that are compatible with Dymo printers. After failing to talk him into becoming an authorized distributor of brand-name Dymo labels, the company began invoking eBay's Verified Rights Owner ("VeRO") program to terminate his auctions of compatible labels. VeRO is an implementation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but although the DMCA applies only to claims of copyright infringement, eBay also extends the same takedown procedures to trademark claims. In this case, the company claimed that by truthfully stating that the labels were compatible with Dymo printers, Mohl was infringing the company's "Dymo" trademark. After several VeRO terminations, Mohl had to remove the Dymo name from his listings in order to avoid the risk of losing his eBay account. As a result, his sales have declined to a fraction of what they used to be. Printer companies are especially active in terminating the eBay sales of compatible products like labels and ink cartridges. This is, we think, another example of abuse of intellectual property laws to squelch legitimate competition. This kind of abuse ultimately hurts everyone by raising prices and reducing choices available to consumers. The Dymo-brand labels on eBay, for example, cost an extra couple dollars per roll. Small eBay sellers, however, typically do not have the resources to defend themselves from the intellectual property claims of big corporations. These claims therefore almost always go unchallenged." This is another bad use of trademark law -- having nothing to do with the intended purpose of trademarks.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 12:30pm

eBay Law
"This is another bad use of trademark law"

...either that, or the "eBay Law"... which we all know otherwise as, "do what I say and not what I do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rabble Rouser, 25 Apr 2006 @ 12:43pm

"This is another bad use of trademark law"
I agree, when corporation giants see the little guy, they want to squash him so they can eat all the profits. This is wrong because it drowns out the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 12:44pm

brand-name Dymo labels
"who sells printer labels that are compatible with Dymo printers. After failing to talk him into becoming an authorized distributor of brand-name Dymo labels"

if Dymo is so "in the right" about their claims, than eBay should also remove all items that are compatible with other such items - such as car parts that are compatible with major manufacture cars (ever heard of AFTERMARKET SUPPORT PRODUCTS?)

...and what about other products that are compatible with someone who owns a Sony VCR and a JVC Television with Adelphia provided Cable hooked up through wires purchased through Radio Shack...

But with Dymo's analogy, the customer would have to have 100% of the product purchased from Best Buy, being manufactured by Best Buy and being 100% ONLY supported by Best Buy... as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 12:48pm

And then what happens if Dymo should go out of business - does this mean that everyone with a Dymo product should throw out that product and replace it with that of a product made by another company?

I mean, if Dymo doesn't allow aftermarket support for their products, they are essentially shooting themselves in their feet if they should ever run into financial problems.

Dymo products will be obsolete since the only place to get support Dymo will be from Dymo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discojohnson, 25 Apr 2006 @ 12:53pm

dymo loses
no laws were broken. next case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re: dymo loses
  "no laws were broken. next case."
  
  if this is the case, why should Dymo make such a big deal about PCLG selling aftermarket products? I mean, the harassment that PCLG has been getting from Dymo is enough for them to at least file suit against Dymo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:05pm

Chain of command
-Apathetic voters elect stupid governent
-Stupid government creates bad law
-Greedy company exploits bad law
-Gutless auction house fails to protect customers from bad law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim W, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:07pm

Why doesn't everyone who reads this report send a message by emailing Dymo on their website and inform them that they are switching to Brother after reading this? It seems to me that they need a lession in ethical behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg Beck, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:27pm

No laws were broken, that is true. The problem, however, is with the DMCA and eBay's VeRO program you are guilty until proven innocent. Even if a claim is meritless, it will still get your sale taken down. There is no counternotice procedure or other appeals process for trademark claims, so the only recourse is to sue. Biig companies count on the fact that small eBay sellers aren't going to subject themselves to that kind of trouble and expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Advisor, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:51pm

Sue the Bastards
Frankly, the person should keep track of ALL expenses and hurt sales due to this and get a lawyer and sue over this.

No laws were broken. Dymo should pay. End of Story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jdragon, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:56pm

I'll sure not to use Dymo
I'm going to boycott anything made by Dymo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2006 @ 1:57pm

This is bizarre. As a paralegal I took a course in Copyright, Patent and Trademark law...one of the things that is very specifically as a kind of fair use is to mention a trademarked item if you have something compatible with it. This certainly seems to me to fall within that permissibility.

Ebay can have whatever policies it wishes, of course, But they should make it clear it's just an ebay restriction and not something to do with legal restrictions on trademark usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael Vilain, 25 Apr 2006 @ 2:49pm

can't contact Dymo
They seem to have insulated their web site from email contact. There's no current way to contact them via email. So, that leaves filing suit and serving papers (and boycotting their products).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 25 Apr 2006 @ 9:11pm

I think he was wrong
After reading the actual facts of the case, I'd have to say that I'm with Dymo on this one. If trademark laws are to prevent confusion in the market place then this is a legit violation.

There's nothing in his item description to say that these labels are not made by Dymo.

Reading it I would not at first glance think that these were a third party label.

I do think that trademark and copyright are over used, but this is a legit case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kim, 26 Apr 2006 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: I think he was wrong
  He states it's a 'compatible' and in no way did he state that the labels were made by Dymo.
  
  There are plenty of 'compatible' items on the market. Why is Dymo picking on him?
  
  Dymo is just a plain bully, and using eBay's LOUSY VERO program (which has lots of loopholes) to enforce their bullying! A total disgrace imho!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris, 27 Apr 2006 @ 12:53pm
    
    Re: Re: I think he was wrong
    The main point is that:
    Reading it I would not at first glance think that these were a third party label.
    In my opinion that is confusion in the market place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 25 Mar 2008 @ 2:11am

Patent infringement
What is strange here is that Dymo labels are patented, so why didn't they just sue him for patent infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]