Yet Another Lawsuit Over Whether A Company Can Ban The Sale Of Its Products Online
from the first-sale dept
Just last week we were talking about baby stroller companies in the UK trying to prevent retailers from selling their goods on eBay, and now Eric Goldman points us to news of a case in the US on this very issue. Here we have a "dietary supplement" seller, Standard Process, who sued an online e-commerce site, Total Health, for selling its supplements despite not being an "authorized reseller." Basically, Total Health would buy products from Standard Process through other means and then resell them online -- which seems like it should be perfectly legal.Not so far, claims the judge. The court refused to grant a summary judgment, claiming that, even though Total Health makes it abundantly clear that it is not an authorized reseller, because Total Health uses the pronouns "we" and "our" in describing Standard Process' products that it somehow (how? who knows?) implies evidence of an affiliation. That seems like quite a stretch. The judge also notes that since Total Health shows up as the top ad result in a search for Standard Process, there's an implied association (why? again... that's not explained at all). There are a few other questionable bits of reasoning by the judge, highlighted at the link above. The judge did rule in Total Health's favor on the question of whether or not it interfered with the "contract" between Standard Process and its authorized resellers, by noting that there's no actual contract if Standard Process just tells the resellers the terms without any actual agreement or exchange taking place. It has the right to stop selling to those resellers, but not to claim that they broke an existing contract.
Still the first part of this ruling does seem quite questionable. It seems like a stretch to think that any moron in a hurry would be confused by Total Health's marketing claims -- when it quite clearly states that it's not an official reseller of Standard Process' goods. It seems like the court twisted itself over backwards to try to come up with any loose link to try to make that connection.
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: dietary supplement, resale
Companies: standard process, total health
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IBM vs. PSI... good article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depends on which moron you choose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Depends on which moron you choose
We knew we would lose trademark
BUT IN THE END WE WON THE RIGHT TO SELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Depends on which moron you choose
AND ALSO THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE
WE ARE SELLING SUPPLEMENTS
WE WON , WON , WON
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
I could sell my car, but I can't make the person buying it think they're buying it from yug^h^h^hferrari.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
Furthermore, it seems that nothing is actually sold anymore, so you actually never own it. I guess corporations let us lease stuff so that we won't be burdened by the obligations of ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So I can't legally resell something I bought leagally?
and you pick up a new mercedes
mercedes can not stop you from selling the car on a website or store
they can enforce that you do not use logos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its leased
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
case was tough
i just happened to be persistent to show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're all missing the point
if you sell something without paying off enough people then your ass is as good as sued. you either need to pay the manufacturer for the right to sell, pay a team of lawyers to protect you from the manufacturer, pay a judge to rule in your favor when the manufacturer sues you, or pay the manufacturer to settle damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was a motion for summary judgement. It was not a decision on the merits. Significantly different legal standards pertain, as the court clearly notes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The two accounts are from well respected legal scholars.
This was a motion for summary judgement.
Which I noted in the post.
You keep accusing me of stuff that is wrong. It's sometimes comical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you believe everything they say because they are "legal scholars"? If you had read the opinion you would have quickly noted that their blog comments glossed over some of the salient facts that guided the judge in his decision.
Regarding my comment about "summary judgement", I suspect that the vast majority of your readers do not understand what the term means, and as a consequence fail to appreciate just what it is the court had decided. For example, it did not say "we", "our", etc. was conclusive on the issue of suggesting a relationship with the plaintiff.
On a final note, your last paragraph suggests that you are familiar with the facts of the case, and yet as you noted in your response you relied on third party accounts to glean what the case is all about. In my view this was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
total health
DOMENIC LOUIS SIRACUSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Much Manganese in a Standard Process Product!!
Standard Process has a product called "Ostrophin PMG 6500"
Each tablet contains 4 mg Manganese.
So could we say that this is 80 times more than what the EPA recommends? Over-consumption of Manganese is cited for Severe Neurological functions by the Linus Pauling Institute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard process - Total Health
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standard process- total health
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standard process- total health
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STANDARD PROCESS INC LAWSUIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
standard process
NOW STANDARD PROCESS SELLS STP ON AMAZON VIA ISERVE WHICH IS INDIRECTLY OWNED BY AMAZON,,,,THEY ARE GOING AGAINST EVERYTHING THEY STOOD FOR,,, TRAITORS TO THE HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS ALL THE WAY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]