|Re: The wonders of eBay|
Subject: Re: The wonders of eBay
by Khamûl on 2010/12/8 5:46:42
I don't think it does (Garm) come back to the old maxim; not when someone is sold something claiming to be, let's say signed in this case, when (knowingly) it is not. The courts (US in this case) may have ruled in their favour this time, but the caveat still (probably) stands "unless they had specific knowledge that particular items might be counterfeit." I think if a trademark holder informs eBay, & assuming the claim (of infringement) can be substantiated, then eBay are going to find it hard to justify doing nothing.
The problem is when the sale is not deliberately misleading, & the seller is unaware of the falsehood of their claims; particularly in the case of the general public selling things on a site like eBay. I don't think any of this has much to do with signed Tolkien items, as very few people could prove (legitimately) a signature is false. Personally I think the onus should normally fall on the seller, but this hardly seems practical or possible in these circumstances; how could anyone sell a signed item?