Troubling Court Ruling: Company Not Allowed To Resell Radar Detectors Online
from the no-first-sale dept
Over the years, we've had plenty of stories about companies trying to limit the ability of resellers to sell their products online, with companies claiming that reselling shampoo or cosmetics on eBay is somehow illegal because of a contract the wholesaler made with its own resellers. Usually these lawsuits don't get very far. Whatever agreement the wholesaler and the reseller had, the eventual seller online usually wasn't a party to those agreements and isn't bound by them -- and (reasonably) the courts recognize that you shouldn't be barred from reselling a product you legally purchased (that whole first sale thing).However, there are some exceptions, and Eric Goldman points us to the latest one. A reseller of radar detectors has effectively been barred from selling a certain brand on eBay, claiming that it was trademark infringement. But what about those first sale rights? Well, apparently this case gets around them by claiming that the product being resold by this company Midwest Inventory Distribution is a different product, because it doesn't come with the same warranty (Midwest offers its own warranty and the original company, Beltronics, refuses to honor warranties on these resold radar detectors). The court also seemed to have problems with the fact that Midwest didn't properly "disclose" this information, even though every auction stated clearly that Midwest offered its own warranty and Beltronics wouldn't provide any warranty coverage.
As Goldman notes, this seems based on some questionable theories, and conceivably could allow companies to skirt around first sale rules, by claiming that anyone reselling their products online are engaging in trademark infringement, because the "warranties" on the products are different -- even if the products themselves are really identical. As Goldman writes:
The net result then is that eBay buyers willing to pay a discount for an identical radar detector but with only Midwest's warranty instead of Beltronics' won't get that choice. Instead, they get the pleasure of buying at the minimum resale price set by Beltronics.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: radar detectors, resellers, trademark
Companies: beltronics, ebay, midwest inventory distribution
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One lost sale
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One lost sale
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spelling nazi
maybe it should be "As Goldman writes:"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
don't let your right hand know what your left is writing
S/B
As Goldman writes:
-Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Useless product anyways
But besides that, It is shameful the way some companies go about this nonsense. Tell me, did BELL not move a unit? no matter who is selling it at what price? At some point, bell sold that unit, and it is revenue for them, this just goes to show why when companies start losing money and complaining about a decrease in sales, it is usually their own fault...
I had a similar problem back when i sold used security equipment on ebay, and a certain manufacturer kept having my auctions pulled for a certain DVR telling me that I did not have the right to sell their units used, that the software on the units was non transferable and that even though i acquired the nits legally, they could not be sold with their software intact. The license for the software however, was on a sticker, on the unit. I eventually won that argument, but not after a battle. It is a shame, the state of GREED among companies these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Illegal in certain States
Usually it is the Usage that is illegal, not the Selling (though like Prostitution, the emphasis can change randomly), but that may also differ between states.
Sounds like the company persuaded a sympathetic Judge to overlook a few basic Rules of Law and Rights.
Far from 'Shutting them down' as James suggests, (since they cannot be selling illegally on the Net if there are States where they _are_ Legal, and if they gave a fair warning like "Not for use in certain States"), surely a retrial with an 'honest' Judge would suffice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Useless
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Their radar detectors suck...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: spelling nazi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Their radar detectors suck...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One lost sale
If not, check the ownership of Beltronics since 2000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm not an expert on this subject, but don't Americans have the right to receive any radio broadcast over their airwaves? I understand we can't 'transmit', because we would have tragedy of the commons and unmitigated interference, but we CAN receive, no?
Either way, we should be allowed to receive, no matter what your state...and aren't there only two states that don't allow detectors? DE and...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Useless product anyways
Many give over a mile of warning of certain types of speed traps. However, in other types of speed traps (most notably laser) they can be innefective. A certain amount of luck is also at play.
So let's say that a good radar detector, in the car of someone who is familiar with interpreting the tweets and chirps, is very effective on some large portion of speed trap. That's a long way from "useless". They got my $250.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RMR = Scam?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1173947740256633837
Or try this one from Radar review site www.Radartest.com
http://radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=8501
The links all inducate that RMR is a full on, 100% scam box that doesn't work. And that people who buy it are victims of cognitive dissonance, and they convince themselves that they didn't get scammed.
If anyone wants one guy's opinion, I researched heavily with a budget of $250 and ended up spending $210 at Amazon for a Beltronics V995. So far, I like it a fair bit.
So R.M., you are either fooling yourself, or...wait a minute. R.M. commenting on how ecstatic he is about his RMR unit... Hmmm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Their radar detectors suck...
In its day, it was #1 with a bullet. Now, it is overpriced for what you get, and not the best available. The reviewer here mentions that in 2000, he rated it the top device, but now it is outshone:
http://radartest.com/article.asp?articleID=100542
But Valentine is a lot like Apple for having a host of over-enthusiastic fanboys. Meanwhile, it is the tech world equivalent of raving about your Palm V in 2009. Awesome device, for sure, but sooooo 2000.
Today, the best Detectors include GPS, so that they can learn where false alarms occur, and not alarm the next time. Using web databases and GPS, they can be updated as to where photo radar and red light cameras are, and alert you to these even if no radar is currently detected. Imagine no false alarms, and warnings for cameras! These blow away the Valentie for about the same $.
Or you can get lower-model detectors for the $2-300 range that are as good as the Valentine for less money.
Check out www.RadarTest.com. It's not the best looking site, and is not complete. But it does appear to me to be a fair and impartial review site, run by guys who know what they're doing. They apply a scientific method to test Detectors head to head in real conditions.
I have no relationship to that site, other than reading most of it one Saturday afternoon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think in NY it is illegal to shoot rabbits from a streetcar
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh no, not at all. The term "public airwaves" is a misnomer used to keep the people thinking that such a thing still exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Their radar detectors suck...
Huh? My local pawn shop has a trade-in program for all brands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
By the way, dealer cost on the $339 Bel RX-65 is only $190. But because Bel asks $339 on their website, that's what they force their dealers to sell at.
Furthermore, in Europe, there is a Bel model where all they do is change the color of the PACKING BOX the unit comes in, and then they add about 50% to the price, claiming it is a special Europe only model! Another European model is a little different (the RX-65 Euro). It just has different software in it - and the price is almost tripled. Dealer cost on a RX65 is about $250, but the retail price (converted to USDollars) is about $700!!!
They make a decent product (though it breaks down WAY more often than a Valentine One), but they're low-lifes when it comes to ethics.
Valentine Research on the other hand is pretty fair. They offer the BEST radar detector for a price that hasn't changed in more than a decade - though the product is continuously updated. And they almost never break down. I've sold thousands of V1s and only had 3 come back for repair.
Signed,
Someone who knows the business
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Useless product anyways
"Radar detectors are useless anyways, more times than not its too late, then when they see a radar detector, your getting a ticket by default, no chance of a warning."
Mine's pretty useful. It saved me yesterday. Twice.
But you're partially right, in that in the case of Instant On (IO) radar (where the cop turns the radar gun on the moment he aims at you), if you don't get any warning from cars ahead of you being tagged with IO, when you here the full tone warning, it's too late - he just nailed you.
If one has a good detector (like a Valentine One), the user usually gets warnings from the cars a half mile to a mile (or more) in front of him, as they each get hit with Instant On. I've detected Ka Band radar at 3.4 miles with my V1 - plenty of time to react.
The one time people goof up and count on their radar detector when they shouldn't, is in the middle of the night on a nice, open, deserted highway. They go banzaiing along at triple digit speeds, and are completely vulnerable to Instant On radar. And the Trooper just sits there in the median, IOing each car as they come by every 10 minutes or so at 2am - and pretty soon, he's got his big score for the night.
And Laser is a problem as well - the laser beam is only about 18" wide at 300 Yards - so when the cop aims it at the front license plate or headlight, the radar detector doesn't get any signal and doesn't even alert - and even if it did, it only alerts you to the fact that you are about to be pulled over. The Valentine One has at least a 50/50 chance against laser - unlike other detectors, it can detect a bounced or difuse laser signal - so you've got a chance of it detecting the car in front of you down the road being measured.
And yes, it is a shame the companies seem to be getting greedier and greedier.
Best wishes,
Someone who knows the business
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My Name is James
The real James
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mesaj
ucretsiz ve uye olmadan porno film indirmek artik cok kolay, ayrica ucretsizonline pornoizlemek icin onlarca linke tiklamanizada gerek yok. Makale icerisinde gecenmanken resimlerilinkine tiklayarak yerli ve yabanci onlarca mankenin resimlerine ulasa bilirsiniz. yerli ve yabanci onlarca divx video filmlerine uye olmadan para odemeden ve beklemeden sahip olabilirsiniz ve tamamiyle gercek sex hikayeleri okumak icinde bir onceki linke tiklamaniz yeterlidir.gunumuzde gercekseks hikayelerine rastlamak cok zor ama bizde bu hicte zor degil.yapmaniz gereken yasanmis ensest hikayelere ulasmak icinsex hikayelerilinkine tiklamaniz yeterlidir ve sonrasi binlerceerotik hikayelersizinle olacak ve okumak size buyuk keyif verecektir. dipnot olarak sikishakkinda merak ettikleriniz sadece burda tam anlamiyla aciklanmaktadir. Emrah SARI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
good work..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radar Detector Reviews
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Second Opinion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too Bad Then
[ link to this | view in thread ]