Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Coach Over Bogus Takedowns, Trademark Bullying
from the nicely-done dept
We've seen so many cases of trademark bullying, and it's so rare to see people fight back, that it's interesting to see it happening -- and even more surprising to see it done as a class action suit. Eric Goldman points us to the news that this class action lawsuit has been filed against luxury goods maker, Coach, for apparently issuing takedowns to eBay for perfectly legitimate second-hand sales, while also threatening those who put up those items. I'll let the lawsuit itself (the full filing is embedded below) explain the basics:Without investigating the validity of its allegations, Coach wantonly accuses consumers of infringing its trademarks by selling counterfeit Coach products. Coach apparently monitors online retailers such as E-Bay, looking for ads from consumers selling second hand Coach products. In response to such ads, Coach delegates a New York law firm to launch a threatening letter to the consumer. These letters accuse the consumer of trademark infringement, threaten legal action, and demand the immediate payment of damages to Coach in "settlement" of Coach's threats. At the same time, Coach (or its New York law firm) informs the online retailer that infringing merchandise is being sold on its website. In many cases, this causes the online retailer to involuntarily remove the allegedly infringing ad, and to disable the consumer's online account. This destroys any chance the consumer had to sell the Coach product second hand, and otherwise damages the consumer.We've definitely seen attempts to use trademark law to block the legitimate sale of secondhand goods. It's a bad trend that needs to be stopped, and hopefully lawsuits like this might do the trick. Unfortunately, in the past few years, we've seen some really underhanded tricks used by producers to effectively block secondhand sales and first sale rights through legal trickery. It's not clear if that kind of defense will be used here.
In many cases (such as that of the lead plaintiff identified here), Coach's allegations of infringement are flatly false. It appears that Coach fails to conduct even a minimally reasonable investigation into its counterfeiting claims before threatening legal action. For example, the lead plaintiff identified in this Complaint is a former Coach employee, who owned, and tried to sell, genuine and legitimate Coach products It was entirely legal for her to do so. Coach's threats against her were false, reckless, and unwarranted.
The lawsuit itself wants a declaratory judgment that selling legitimate Coach goods secondhand does not infringe... but also includes a defamation claim, pointing out that accusing someone of infringement when it's not true could be seen as libelous. That part seems like a stretch, but I'll be curious to see how the court rules.
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, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: coach, ebay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
For Coach, unless a seller is one of their approved sales agents, the vendor isn't selling real Coach products.
There is little other way for them to tell on the surface. Perhaps Ebay needs to be a little more strict on marking "Official Licensed Seller" and "Second Hand Products"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right of first sale doctrine. If the product is genuine, Coach has no standing to dispute the sale. If I want to sell my car on Ebay, Chevrolet can't stop me by issuing a takedown notice.
There is little other way for them to tell on the surface. Perhaps Ebay needs to be a little more strict on marking "Official Licensed Seller" and "Second Hand Products"?
That sounds an awful lot like 'Youtube should automatically know which uploaded videos are authorized by Viacom' when Viacom can't even tell which are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That sounds an awful lot like 'Youtube should automatically know which uploaded videos are authorized by Viacom' when Viacom can't even tell which are
No, that would be more like asking companies to prove their dealer status, or have all of their products marked "USED / SECOND HAND / NOT OFFICIAL DEALER". It isn't a big deal, rather it's a good way to keep consumers informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, maybe I am missing something, but when I want a new product from a dealer I can trust, I don't think ebay has ever entered my mind.
When I buy stuff off ebay, I expect they are used/second hand/not official dealer. I know I am not alone in this belief. I think the burden of proof should be the opposite, in that companies that are selling brand new merchandise, who are authorized dealers, should plaster that message all over their products on ebay, and then the company should go after those who are lying about their new/authorized dealer status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shoot them all and let god sort it out? Any means are justifiable as long as we get some of the bad guys, doesn't matter how many innocent people get hit along the way?
Coach does not have a defense here. It doesn't matter if they do manage to turn up some truly illegal things here, they started accusing people without any research or evidence. Coach is in the wrong and they should be punished. If they would like to pursue legal recourse against those who are truly guilty, they are welcome to threw due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genuine
> approved sales agents, the vendor isn't
> selling real Coach products.
The it's a good thing Coach doesn't get to set the legal standard by which such things are judged, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bose
But this legal strategy is a win-win for Bose- they want to control the Bose market, by ensuring that all Bose retailers are "authorized dealers" who are contractually limited and controlled by Bose. Even if Bose is wrong about the actual product not being counterfeits, in the course of legal discovery they will uncover which authorized seller was skirting their contractual duties and which the second-hand dealer would not want to happen since he may then be cut-off from his supplier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burden of Proof
The abuse of civil law that can happen when one party is much richer than the other has a similar effect. There is a case for applying criminal law standards here - since major corporations are as powerful (relative to the individual) as the state they should be made to obey the same rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defining the Class
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward - logic lacking
Exactly where is the logic in your response?
"That would be true if the product was clearly offered up as "used". Selling of a new product without being a dealer may be an issue (misappropriation of trade mark, example). Your Chevy example fails because it is clear you are not a Chevy dealer selling a new car, you are some dude selling his used El Camino."
There is no legal obligation on the seller to identify him/herself at all here. Nor is there any legal authority for Coach attempting to control the resale. It is their obligation to determine if something is or is not infringing. There is a penalty for ready, fire, aim
That sounds an awful lot like 'Youtube should automatically know which uploaded videos are authorized by Viacom' when Viacom can't even tell which are
No, that would be more like asking companies to prove their dealer status, or have all of their products marked "USED / SECOND HAND / NOT OFFICIAL DEALER". It isn't a big deal, rather it's a good way to keep consumers informed.
Again, where is the legal basis or logic in such a statement? You really want everyone to do all of the work for brand owners don't you?
I hope this type of action persists. I also suggest that the plaintiff's counsel consider claims such as tortious interference and perhaps even a RICO claim based upon the "settlement" demand made to resolve claims that may be completely unsubstantiated.
PRK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]