French handbag eBay over fakes
French court acts
eBay must pay £30.6m (€38.8m) in damages to posh handbag group LVMH for allowing fake versions of its designer bags to be sold on the auction site.
The online tat house said it would appeal the decision and accused the French company of using the issue of fakes to crack down more generally on online sales.
The case was brought on two separate grounds - that eBay failed to take enough action to stop counterfeit goods being sold in 2006 and that it allowed genuine, but unauthorised, sales of certain perfume brands.
The Paris commercial court awarded damages of €16.4m to Louis Vuitton, €19.28m Christian Dior and €3.2m to the perfume brands. It rejected eBay's claim that it was just a host and that individual traders were responsible for the legality of their lots.
The second part of the case seems to put French law at odds with European Commission thinking on this issue. European Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva said last week she wanted to see an end to such restrictions, a move supported by eBay. The EC is likely to push for a single price across Europe and to allow consumers to buy products online from other countries as they wish.
eBay issued the following statement: “If Counterfeits appear on our sites we take them down swiftly, but today’s ruling is not about our fight against counterfeit; today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday."
LVMH makes Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Dior perfumes, TAG watches as well as several champagne brands and Hennessy cognac.
ebay and fakes
The fines seem a bit harsh.Are they in line with supposed profits, or merely a punishment for entreprenureal foresight! The old guard don't like their club armchairs moved, do they?
One of Two
Either eBay does not know how to, or cannot afford to, hire a descent lawyer, or the game was rigged.
Granted, I believe eBay has recently lost their way with changes to the rating system and such that undermines their value as a facilitator of transactions between individuals, but how can any court with a nodding acquaintance of justice not recognize that, in the vast majority of transactions handled by eBay, eBay is neither buyer nor seller.
Would it be reasonable to expect that the owner of a mall be responsible for the authenticity of goods sold by someone who rents retail space in that mall?
As a legal decision, it just seems stunningly wrong.
Two faced morons
Most of the posters here are pleased to see ebay get hit, yet when they read of court action against sites like pirate bay, they are up in arms. I am going to give up reading the reg comments as it is too full of mindless morons these days.
And people that buy the full priced genuine article are mindless too.