US Courts Recognize That eBay Isn't Responsible For Auctions By Users
from the a-good-ruling dept
Unlike last month's awful ruling in a French court, costing eBay millions, a US court has correctly recognized that eBay should not be found responsible for auctions of counterfeit goods. This case involved Tiffany Co., who wanted eBay to be held liable for others selling fake Tiffany goods on eBay auctions. The court sided with eBay on every single charge, and smacked down Tiffany over and over again in the ruling. It noted that eBay is not responsible for the actions of its users, and Tiffany is wrong to suggest that eBay has the responsibility to monitor the auction site for infringing auctions. eBay does take down such counterfeit auctions when made aware of them, and that is all that the company is required to do. The court specifically points out that the Supreme Court had already rejected the idea of a "reasonable anticipation" standard that would have made eBay liable, even though Tiffany tries to suggest otherwise. The court also notes that eBay didn't infringe on Tiffany trademarks in mentioning Tiffany in advertisements for the site. This is an excellent overall ruling, and nearly the complete opposite of the terrible French ruling.
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: auctions, counterfeit goods, liability, platforms
Companies: ebay, tiffany
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French Rules
Ebay's fee structure should be altered so that they do not profit from counterfeit sales (only listing fees, and no percentage of the sale fees). This would protect ebay from most lawsuits.
I also believe that eBay DID in fact infringe on Tiffany trademarks in mentioning Tiffany in advertisements for the site. Ebay (or anyone else for that matter) should not use the trademarks of another for their own gain without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
eBay provides a service. It profits from providing that *service*, not from the sale of counterfeit goods.
I also believe that eBay DID in fact infringe on Tiffany trademarks in mentioning Tiffany in advertisements for the site. Ebay (or anyone else for that matter) should not use the trademarks of another for their own gain without permission.
That's incorrect. The purpose of a trademark is NOT to grant the mark holder complete control over the mark, but to prevent consumers from being confused about who made a product.
Based on your rules, Pepsi could never mention Coke in an advertisement.
You can and should be able to use a trademark in an advertisement, so long as you're not trying to convince someone that you are that other company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: French Rules
I agree, Pepsi should NOT be mentioning Coke in their ads unless an agreement has been made with Coke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: French Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: French Rules
That's for the service. They price the service based on the fees sold, but they're getting paid for the service not the good.
I agree, Pepsi should NOT be mentioning Coke in their ads unless an agreement has been made with Coke.
Really? Then didn't you just break both Coke and Pepsi's trademark?
The idea that Pepsi can't mention Coke is utterly ridiculous. What possible rationale could you have for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
Mike wrote:
Are they providing a different level of service based on the price of the item? Nope--it's exactly the same service. So clearly Ebay's profit is from the sale of the item, not the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
So, if your logic holds, the credit card company and the shipping company shouldn't make money either. As shouldn't the cardboard box maker, nor the cellophane tape maker either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French Rules
The law does make Ebay liable to such behavior under the law of contributory infringement, but only if Ebay knew that the goods were counterfeit and still allowed the sale. If Ebay does not know that a certain auction is for a counterfeit good, they cannot be held liable for the sale of that good.
Ebay's fee structure should be altered so that they do not profit from counterfeit sales (only listing fees, and no percentage of the sale fees). This would protect ebay from most lawsuits.
I suppose it would, but given the enormity of Ebay, that would be an administrative nightmare. How is Ebay supposed to know which auctions are for legit goods and which ones are for counterfeits?
I also believe that eBay DID in fact infringe on Tiffany trademarks in mentioning Tiffany in advertisements for the site. Ebay (or anyone else for that matter) should not use the trademarks of another for their own gain without permission.
How is Ebay using the Tiffany marks for their own gain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?!
If Ebay only charged listing fees, those fees would be much higher than what they are now. The fees would be paid even if an item didn't sale. Their current fee schedule allows the gal with some oddball item that she doesn't want to list it at a low cost and if it sales then she pays a little more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay knows there's tons of counterfeit items sold, they don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post Title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse than US courts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this is the case then why do we hold ISP`s responsible for torrents ?
All ISP`s do is provide a service, just like ebay.
One rule for one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well..
I will simply say that this is an awesome court ruling and I am very glad to hear about it. Now we need to just push this farther so the same occurs with regards to ISPs & Torrent Tracker sites so that the MAFIAA will be forced to back down. Now that would be grand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut UP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pawnshops are though- double standard
I mean that incredibly smart statement from our illustrious judges in this great country stating that a money laundering site like Ebay isn't "responsible" for what their users do is mind boggeling genius to say the least...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ebay policies
You know, I cant believe that ebay took off from sale a pair of used tights I was selling saying they were adult material !! they want to take note of the more serious offenses that are happening on their site, instead of petty things like used tights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]