Demaestro - 11:26 pm on Nov 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

Even though Ebay was found not to be the party violating Tiffany's trademarks, they nonetheless profit from other people's violations, every time it happens. At what point does that become Not Okay?

My analogy isn't perfect, it was more to show that the venue of a crime shouldn't be held accountable for said crime. In the real world or the digital.


At what point does that become Not Okay? I would say at the point where they actually break a law would the point where it becomes not ok. At this point I haven't seen any law that Ebay has broken. Maybe IF it could be shown that more "bad" items are sold then "good" items on Ebay that they could be called negligent but even that is a stretch.

It would be an insurmountable task for New York city to ensure each of it's licensed street vendors sold only legitimate goods... Ebay also faces the same insurmountable task of ensuring this from it's vendors.
They spent $20 million last year combating fake listings. It isn't like they are doing nothing.

I see a distinction between buying something FROM Ebay and buying something ON Ebay. As far as I know Ebay hasn't sold any trademarked goods.

I don't think collecting a fee from every transaction on their site constitutes a crime. Apparently neither do the courts.

I think it is lazy to go after the deep pockets and the larger payday then go after actual offenders.

It is easy to point at Ebay and be angry that they have made a profit from the transactions but I find it hard to swallow that Tiffany's is really interested in justice and protecting their mark when they don't go after the real offenders... smells like a cash grab not protection of a trademark. If they got I.P.s of sellers, requested ISP to name the holders of the I.P.s and named them as co defendants in the case then I would believe that they are interested in justice.