Gucci Sues Credit Card Processors For Trademark Infringement

from the that's-a-stretch... dept

Wed, Aug 12th 2009 1:24pm — Mike Masnick

Rose M. Welch alerts us to the news that Gucci America has decided to sue a bunch of credit card processors for trademark infringement. Why? Because they processed the credit cards of some online sites that happened to sell fake Gucci bags. This, of course, makes no sense. None of the credit card companies were actually violating Gucci's trademarks at all, and I can't see how they can show those firms actually "used" its trademarks in commerce. This seems like a pure money grab. Gucci already received an award of $5.2 million from the site that used these credit card processors, so this just seems like going after more cash for the same issue, but suing companies further up the chain. I can't see Gucci having much success here, but it reminds us that there really ought to be a Section 230-style safe harbor for trademarks as well.

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: credit card processors, safe harbors, trademark
Companies: gucci

25 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 1:42pm

More and more this site is turning into the Onion, without the satire. Sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- trilobug, 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:43pm
  
  Re:
  Tell me about it, apparently that's the world we live in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 1:56pm

Next up are the landlords of the offices rented by these processors...

Followed by the banks used by the landlords of the offices rented by these processors...

Followed by the customers of the banks used by the landlords of the offices rented by these processors...

Followed by the companies that made the cars driven by the customers of the banks used by the landlords of the offices rented by these processors...

If only there really were a hole in the bottom of the sea for some of these lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  They forgot suing the takeout restaurant that delivered food to the people that were selling fake Gucci products.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's true - they wouldn't have been able to work late hours manufacturing fake Gucci products without Dong Hong Wong's Kung Pao chicken. Clearly Dong Hong Wong profited from the sale of fake Gucci products, and should be liable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 1:56pm

Please
There is SUCH an easy solution to this problem.

Just make any person/business bringing any civil lawsuit that gets tossed out pay 10% of their asking price in the suit into the nearest public education system and be done with it.

You want to sue everyone and everything just to see what sticks? Fine. But the only one getting stuck will be you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BullJustin (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Please
  I like this idea
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:56pm
    
    Re: Re: Please
    Same here, but if the organization tries to spin it as a charitable act they should be fined 7 times the amount originally fined.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy, 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: Please
  Actually it would be more interesting for the loser in a lawsuit to be responsible for reimbursing the winner of the suit for all expenses they incurred linked to the suit. This means not just legal fees...
  
  JMHO
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Please
    "Actually it would be more interesting for the loser in a lawsuit to be responsible for reimbursing the winner of the suit for all expenses they incurred linked to the suit. This means not just legal fees..."
    
    Then corporations would win all lawsuits against little guys. I think the loser should pay the lower of the 2 sets of legal fees to the winner. That way, the little guy is only out twice the value of his (somewhat meager) attorney bills, but the large corporation does get dinged with "fishing suits" such as the RIAA ones.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Please
      Just don't get legal representation, and you don't have to pay anything!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Please
        "Just don't get legal representation, and you don't have to pay anything!"
        
        Hello, my name is Ridiculously High Court Fees....I don't think we've met.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: Please
  Honestly asking: is there no law against this sort of action? If there is, the punishment needs to be something more like 50% of NET profits for the next 10 years go to the nearest public education system.
  
  Deters corporations from doing this, and gives education a serious fund boost if there are convictions. Two birds and all that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:13pm

Actually, as visa / mastercard profited from the sales, they should return the amounts they have kept. the 2 or 3% of the transactions would run into the 6 figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- washii (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  Except I'm fairly sure the credit processors performed in good faith. The fake Gucci websites? Not so much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If the credit card processors don't look at the businesses they process for, they should be somewhat liable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tek'a R (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 11:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      card processors are not in the business of screening people and imagining theoretical futures where they are responsible for the actions of others.
      
      I would assume that the only liability, if any at All for a processing company is in making sure they have factual information and keep records on who they do business with to avoid fraud, and thats it.
      
      If you allow this wooly-minded and backwards thinking, what will be next?
      
      "Bed, Bath and So-on is responsible for this murder, because they sold a knife set that the killer received as a wedding present"
      
      "Radio-Hovel should have known.. only a Terrorist would buy a pair of alligator clips and a pack of AA batteries. Officer, round up these clerks, they obviously knew exactly what the madman had planned all along"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Aug 2009 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you miss the point. If Visa got an application from "90% off Gucci Bags", mail order only, perhaps they might have wanted to ask the quick question about the legality of the products being sold.
        
        Remember, unlike a landlord, Visa very directly profits from every transaction, so they have a financial benefit to being specifically blind. They took in a couple of hundred thousand dollars for processing for stolen / illegal merchandise.
        
        It isn't question of how a legal product was used (your two examples) but how an illegal product was sold. Do you think that Visa and Mastercard should knowingly be allowed to process for drug dealers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Almost Anonymous (profile), 13 Aug 2009 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, do you really think they named their company "Blatant Obvious Rip-Off Website"?
        
        Second, I am at a complete loss as to why a credit-card processing center should have to screen (or really any other kind of due diligence) their customers. In my opinion, they should never even know what the "goods" are, they should only know "we request this sum, do they have it?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shmengie, 12 Aug 2009 @ 2:24pm

that does it...
i will never buy another gucci jockstrap again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2009 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re: that does it...
  I will never buy a Gucci product, period. When I buy something, I buy quality, not a name. Sometimes the name is synonymous with quality, but not always. I refuse to pay ridiculous amounts of money for something based purely on the name alone, especially when the name is on the face of a company that is so consumed with greed that they resort to these tactics to pad their own pockets, instead of earning an honest living. Maybe if they would come down off their pedestal and charge reasonable prices for their products, then perhaps the market for fake knock-offs would shrink considerably or even disappear. But heaven forbid they actually make any smart business decisions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 5:43pm

Better idea
Let's just get to the heart of the matter, here. Whether you vote Dem or Rep, start paying attention to the people for whom you are voting. That way maybe...just maybe...we can get some good laws passed -- and bad ones removed -- without the legislators being so damned concerned with how much money their pet parrot's great-grandchicks are going to have.

/tangent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 12 Aug 2009 @ 6:08pm

Please & Better Idea
I'm all for punishing the purveyors of bullshit lawsuits everywhere, but surely there's a better place to dump a ton of money into than the public school system. They've done so much with so little already.

How about just dividing it up among the members of the local community to do with as they see fit. Imagine thousands of cheering locals rooting for the suit to get tossed out of court. The judges doing that would be like gods.

Of course, some good would go out with the bad, depending on each judge's prediliction for popularity, but it should trim down the number of filings nearly immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ApplyCreditCard-Online.com, 13 Aug 2009 @ 3:27pm

Spot-on
Your comment "none of the credit card companies were actually violating Gucci's trademarks at all..." is spot-on.

Perhaps the credit card processors can be made liable for approving the online merchant.

The matter could be complicated further if the credit card processors are aware of the online merchant business activities.

Nonetheless, most probably the online merchant does not reveal their true intent when the application was made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learstiphen, 17 Sep 2012 @ 8:07am

Liable to
I like this idea very much. If the credit card processors don't look at the commerce they process for, they should be somewhat liable for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]