What's The Liability For A Service Provider Who Ignores Takedown Notices?
from the we-may-be-about-to-find-out dept
We've gone on at length over the years concerning safe harbors for online service providers, noting that service providers shouldn't (and usually don't, under the law) have liability for illegal actions performed by users of the service. However, many of the safe harbors that provide that protection make it clear that should the service providers be informed of illegal activities, the service providers need to take action to avoid becoming liable. However, if the service providers don't take action, what is their liability? We may soon find out, thanks to a new lawsuit involving eBay and the maker of of dollhouse furniture, Hansson. Hansson is upset that someone else is selling dollhouse furniture on eBay using Hansson's trademark. While, at first, this might sound like other such lawsuits against eBay for counterfeit goods, this case is different in a few important ways. First, Hansson actually is suing the company who is selling the counterfeit doll furniture. Second, while it is suing eBay, that's only because Hansson claims that the company sent eBay eight takedown notices and a cease-and-desist letter -- all of which were ignored. So, the question now becomes what kind of liability eBay faces if it's found that the company ignored the various notifications about infringing goods on the site. Eric Goldman, who wrote the story at the link above wonders why eBay would ignore all those notifications, but also questions whether or not it's wise on Hansson's part to drag eBay into the lawsuit just to get its attention. As he says, Hansson may get more of eBay's attention than it really wanted.
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
Filed Under: safe harbors, service providers, takedown notices, trademark
Companies: ebay, hansson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ebay does not care....
Something went wrong in the setup and wrong account (someone else's) was linked to my email.
I gave up after 4 attempts trying to inform Ebay.
I was first told by Ebay CSO's to check with my ISP that they had not closed my email (what that had to do with a mislinked account...).
The CSO did not seem to understand that my ISP could not close my hotmail account. It was also the email address the Ebay CSO was replying to, so it must be working.
Then things went downhill.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad but true.
It is a sad truth that trying to get justice in a US court against a large corporation often backfires when the court system seems not to be trying to determine who is right or wrong but who has the most money. If Hansson isn't in Ebay's league then the court may just let Ebay mop the floor with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At first, they were free
However, now that they've "ignored" 8 prior takdedowns, are they now an accessory to trademark infringement? Truthfully, more than likely. Since Hansson is no doubt a legally registered trademark and their products are copyrighted, their 8 dismissals and failure to act C&D now make eBay an accessory. Of course, Hansson's name may be trademarked but their items may not be copyrighted so the takedowns could at that point be null and void since a legal infringment must only occur for media that has been previously copyrighted by the Copyright Office (at least for finite goods).
At worst, eBay's lawyers will end up burying Hansson Inc. over some legalese technicality but at best, they'll be an accessory to trademark fraud/copyright infringment along with severe due professional negligence.
Although, IANAL (I just do this same thing everyday at work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay is pretty difficult to deal with on auction issues unless you already bought the item from the seller. For instance, I was looking for a new cell phone and thought I'd check on the Verizon Voayger. ABout half of the auctions are for "dummy" or "Display" models, or for "business email Voyager domains". Patently not for a cell phone. But when I tried to send a not to eBay, they made it next to impossible to get a message to them.
Am I being unreasonable to expect that auctions that purport to be for an actual cell phone be for an actual cell phone? I guess I am...
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest going down this path is dangerous. Why can't I notify eBay that my competitor's products are counterfeit and have them shut down with just a simple letter? Slippery slope... watch out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
Yay for not adding pointless lawsuits against those who had no responsibility.
In this case, it actually makes sense that they are suing eBay, unlike pretty much every other case filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flea Markets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eBay is a facilitator, and they should not be facilitating wrongful and/or unlawful activity. If proven that they did so, they should then be liable for damages.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
update?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]