Alleged Copyright Infringement

[Rhothgar]

Hello. I'm new to this forum having just signed up and I can see I am not alone in such issues.

We are a small company with a small turnover and the tiniest of profit margins. It's hardly worth bothering anymore to be frank.

We had a listing made inactive by Amazon two weeks ago this Sunday and also a listing removed from Ebay.

PLEASE take everything I say on face value as I have researched as much as I can and am now exhausted from it.

The right's owner who is based in the USA has claimed copyright infringement. From what I can deduce this seems to imply we are selling counterfeit goods. This is not the case. We have an audit trail for our goods and the company we buy from dispose of Amazon overstock.

We have no quarms whatsoever about the genuine nature of the stock. It is without question.

The issue seems to be that the right's owner must know we have not purchased from their authorised UK distributor as we are not registered with their distributor so they either think:-

a) We are selling counterfeit goods or,
b) We are infringing their rights by way of parallel imports.

Neither is true and we can prove this should the need arise.

Amazon and Ebay gave us the contact details of FindFakes.com (who appear to work on getting a fee for Ebay takedowns - it is therefore in their interests to get as much of the brand taken off Ebay as is possible.) and also the email to send information to the right's owner direct.

Diligently, we emailed both sending photos and even videos of the stock.

Two weeks later - neither have replied.

We appear to have had a test purchase from some solicitors in Manchester which we, of course, welcome. It may not be related. It may be someone working there just wanted one.

The item has registered Trade Marks in the UK with the IPO whom I spoke with yesterday.

I also have spoken with CMA who put me onto the Pro Bono service which is available although I have not received a reply as yet.

We cannot afford to engage solicitors. So the Pro Bono service, will be a godsend if they take this on although it offers 2 hours free advice.

Amazon will not accept the invoice from our supplier as they are not the UK Authorised Distributor (even though Amazon themselves are Clients of our supplier and are disposing of this stock through them).

I have even tried to speak with the right's owners solicitor anonymously today to understand their Client's issue.

My question to those with a clear understanding of this is this:-

a) I believe that this is a breach of the Competition Act insofar as the right's holder had Amazon remove 6 listings that were priced below the right's holders current price on Amazon.

b) I believe that the trademark was exhausted when Amazon chose to dispose of their stock. (Their reasons for doing this I will never understand)

c) The item has not been materially altered in any way.

d) The item does not have a warranty per se as it is a family card game.

e) As we have purchased, in good faith, are can we realistically be prevented from selling a genuine article which we make no claims to in terms of IP?

Any advice however small would be most welcome.

We are at our wits' end with this and almost want to take the fight to the right holder by way of slating them on social media.

It really is disgraceful that decent, honest people can be treated this way.

I should also point out that there is no exclusive licence agreement for any particular one company to sell this card game in the UK.

What are we doing wrong and how can we resolve this without bloodshed?

Thanks in anticipation.

Rhothgar

 

[Mr D]

What did amazon and ebay tell you when they removed / suspended the listing?

Proving your item isn't counterfeit can be awkward. You usually need brand owner on side to get situation resolved.
Amazon at least have been known to hold funds for counterfeit item claims. For all sales.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

I do not think they are accusing you of selling counterfeit goods. You simply infringe on their name or logo in your pictures. You would need additional authorization to use the name and pictures, logos from the uk licensee or the us company. If they do not wan to give it to you too bad for you. Not much you can do. Again, I think you want to proof the wrong thing to amazon and ebay.

 

[The Byre]

The trick here is to sell the goods as 'manufacturer refurbished' and to NOT use their logos.

 

[obscure]

a) I believe that this is a breach of the Competition Act insofar as the right's holder had Amazon remove 6 listings that were priced below the right's holders current price on Amazon.

Nothing to do with competition Act - they are alleging copyright infringement because you are using the IP in your advertising.

b) I believe that the trademark was exhausted when Amazon chose to dispose of their stock. (Their reasons for doing this I will never understand)

Incorrect. Amazon aren't the trademark owner and what Amazon does with stock has no baring on the Trademark.

c) The item has not been materially altered in any way.

Irrelevant to a claim of trademark/copyright infringement.

d) The item does not have a warranty per se as it is a family card game.

Also irrelevant

e) As we have purchased, in good faith, are can we realistically be prevented from selling a genuine article which we make no claims to in terms of IP?

I have not seen the listings or their email/letter so I don't know the details of the alleged infringement......
Regardless of if the product is genuine you need the IP owners permission to use their Trademarks/Copyright.

• You can't use their logo without permission.
• You can't use their photos of the product,
• You can't use their trademarks in an unduly prominent manner (large text/highlighted).

However, what you can do is describe something. Referring to a trademark in plain text as part of a description (provided it isn't highlighted or given any undue prominence) is not infringement. Writing "Fore sale. Exploding Kittens card game - new. Box with playing pieces etc etc, then on Monday I had chips" is not trademark infringement.

I should also point out that there is no exclusive licence agreement for any particular one company to sell this card game in the UK.

Again irrelevant to the issue of trademark/copyright infringement.

What are we doing wrong and how can we resolve this without bloodshed?

You could hire a lawyer, but that is likely to become expensive.

 

[kulture]

You have two problems, one is easy fixed, the other not. You have not infringed trade marks or copyright by simply selling or advertising their products. This is fair use. Any attempt to prosecute you over this would be pointless. You cannot be held to account for any breach of a territorial agreement because you never signed any agreement.

So outside of Amazon and Ebay you are not in any trouble.

Your problem is the process followed by Amazon and Ebay which you can see is flawed. You are relying on the person who complained to admit that they are wrong. Why would they do that? They have stopped you from competing, they have thus improved their margins, so why admit their error.

There is no easy solution to their bully boy tactics. Do you have much stock left? Is there any other way of selling it outside these platforms? It may be a better use of your time looking at alternatives rather than hitting this brick wall.

 

[Rhothgar]

What did amazon and ebay tell you when they removed / suspended the listing?

"We removed some of your listings because we received a report from a rights owner that they may infringe the rights owner’s copyright"

Proving your item isn't counterfeit can be awkward. You usually need brand owner on side to get situation resolved.

Very true. I've even thought the brand owner could, if they wanted do a test purchase, and even lie if it so suited them. In this case, we would have to get an independent laboratory to verify. In this regard, I have asked our supplier, if we buy some more to retain some from the order in safekeeping so that we have something to fall back on in terms of proving actual source and authenticity with them not being an authorised distributor.

Amazon at least have been known to hold funds for counterfeit item claims. For all sales.

The infringement type noted in Amazon's communication states "Copyright" which I take to mean counterfeit as, as I understand it, breach of Copyright is taking someone else's idea, and replication it but using their identifying features.

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that you are allowed to use the brand owner's images and text if the item is genuine as that is exactly what you are selling.

 

[Rhothgar]

You would need additional authorization to use the name and pictures, logos from the uk licensee or the us company.

Why is this? If the article is genuine, surely you can sell it without authorisation. In this instance, please remember we are talking about a family card game which presumably does not require a warranty and it isn't going to break down. Having said that, I see that the company does offer to send replacement cards out if they are missing from the pack. Good QA!

And going back to your original comment, thereby hangs the problem. Amazon, as you will know, uses Product Detail Pages so it is a stock photo anyway.

Without any response from the right's owner, I am truly at a loss as to what they want from us.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

Kulture and obscure answered all your questions. Only point I disagree is with Kultures " fair use " which is open for discussion. For the rest read both they pretty much nailed it.

 

[fisicx]

Amazon, as you will know, uses Product Detail Pages so it is a stock photo anyway.

Amazon has permission to use the image - you don't.

Without any response from the right's owner, I am truly at a loss as to what they want from us.

They want you to stop trading.

 

[fisicx]

The infringement type noted in Amazon's communication states "Copyright" which I take to mean counterfeit as, as I understand it, breach of Copyright is taking someone else's idea, and replication it but using their identifying features.

Nope. Copyright means you need permission to use images, trademarked names, descriptions and anything that the originator created.

 

[Mr D]

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that you are allowed to use the brand owner's images and text if the item is genuine as that is exactly what you are selling.

The person who created the listing assigned the photo to amazon for amazon's own use.
All other sellers of that exact product should use the same product page - which of course uses the same photo and description.
In reality when using an amazon page you don't know where the image has come from and whether the person using it to set up the page has permission to use it.

 

[Mr D]

Amazon has permission to use the image - you don't.


They want you to stop trading.

Amazon are using the image - its amazon's site.

 

[Rhothgar]

Thanks to all so far for their input. It is very much appreciated and particularly for this Dan.

What a fantastic and full answer but I need some clarification to fully understand please.

Nothing to do with competition Act - they are alleging copyright infringement because you are using the IP in your advertising.

Maybe on an Ebay listing but not Amazon. Amazon have Product Detail Pages over which we have no control. Amazon should block anyone from listing an item, as they can, if they are not authorised to list that item. Personal feeling.

Incorrect. Amazon aren't the trademark owner and what Amazon does with stock has no baring on the Trademark.

Understood. That is clear to me.

Irrelevant to a claim of trademark/copyright infringement.

Could you expand on this please referring to relevant legislation clause if possible as from what I read, the alteration of a product does breach Trademark. The item has not been altered and so doesn't breach trademark. It is what it is.

Also irrelevant

From previous allegations (sets of August headphones), it does appear to be an issue because the manufacturer does not want to provide a warranty to an end customer if they have purchased from an unauthorised source.

I have not seen the listings or their email/letter so I don't know the details of the alleged infringement......
Regardless of if the product is genuine you need the IP owners permission to use their Trademarks/Copyright.

• You can't use their logo without permission.
• You can't use their photos of the product,
• You can't use their trademarks in an unduly prominent manner (large text/highlighted).
  

• 
  

Could you advise where this is legislated for UK please?

However, what you can do is describe something. Referring to a trademark in plain text as part of a description (provided it isn't highlighted or given any undue prominence) is not infringement. Writing "Fore sale. Exploding Kittens card game - new. Box with playing pieces etc etc, then on Monday I had chips" is not trademark infringement.

Is your typo, "Fore sale" and your use of "On Monday I had chips" for the former deliberate and for the latter, light-hearted sarcasm or serious?

Again irrelevant to the issue of trademark/copyright infringement.

Irrelevant in respect of our concerns but not irrelevant maybe if other selling above the right's holders price are not buying from authorised distributor.

You could hire a lawyer, but that is likely to become expensive.

This is what I fear.
It may be worth me getting together with a few of my trusted competitors who I know and throwing some money at a Legal 500 Trademark Attorney to understand if there is a set method of responding to these Amazon takedowns as, if the rights holder doesn't have the interest, in responding then our hands are tied anyway.

We can't hold a gun to the rights' holders head and force them to reply or can we?

How would you best deal with it?

 

[Mr D]

Thanks to all so far for their input. It is very much appreciated and particularly for this Dan.

What a fantastic and full answer but I need some clarification to fully understand please.



Maybe on an Ebay listing but not Amazon. Amazon have Product Detail Pages over which we have no control. Amazon should block anyone from listing an item, as they can, if they are not authorised to list that item. Personal feeling.




Understood. That is clear to me.




Could you expand on this please referring to relevant legislation clause if possible as from what I read, the alteration of a product does breach Trademark. The item has not been altered and so doesn't breach trademark. It is what it is.



From previous allegations (sets of August headphones), it does appear to be an issue because the manufacturer does not want to provide a warranty to an end customer if they have purchased from an unauthorised source.

Could you advise where this is legislated for UK please?



Is your typo, "Fore sale" and your use of "On Monday I had chips" for the former deliberate and for the latter, light-hearted sarcasm or serious?

Amazon do not know who is authorised to sell that item. That's down to the brand owner to police, not the site owner. Unless the site owner signs up to a brand blocking scheme - which presumably costs them.

 

[Rhothgar]

You have two problems, one is easy fixed, the other not. You have not infringed trade marks or copyright by simply selling or advertising their products. This is fair use. Any attempt to prosecute you over this would be pointless. You cannot be held to account for any breach of a territorial agreement because you never signed any agreement.

So outside of Amazon and Ebay you are not in any trouble.

Your problem is the process followed by Amazon and Ebay which you can see is flawed. You are relying on the person who complained to admit that they are wrong. Why would they do that? They have stopped you from competing, they have thus improved their margins, so why admit their error.

There is no easy solution to their bully boy tactics. Do you have much stock left? Is there any other way of selling it outside these platforms? It may be a better use of your time looking at alternatives rather than hitting this brick wall.

You know exactly where I am coming from and must have experience of this so thanks for your input.

I could ask someone on People Per Hour to get our website on Page 1 of Google for that particular product I suppose. The funny thing is there is an illegal website above the actual rights' owner on Google whom I reported to the rights' owner so I am on their side. Perhaps I should have used that information as leverage as they were quick to get our listing taken down and then not bothered to respond to our emails.

The person that complained is in actual fact the rights' holder, Amazon provided their email address to communicate to.

We have around 200 pieces left but also missed out on purchasing 1000 pieces this week. There is a nice margin for us to be had on Amazon if we sell at the RRP in direct competition with the actual manufacturer.

 

[Rhothgar]

The person who created the listing assigned the photo to amazon for amazon's own use.
All other sellers of that exact product should use the same product page - which of course uses the same photo and description.
In reality when using an amazon page you don't know where the image has come from and whether the person using it to set up the page has permission to use it.

I believe that the Product Detail Page was actually set up by the brand owner.

 

[Rhothgar]

Amazon do not know who is authorised to sell that item. That's down to the brand owner to police, not the site owner. Unless the site owner signs up to a brand blocking scheme - which presumably costs them.

They use FindFakes.com on Ebay. Not sure about Amazon. Maybe the same company. This is why I am railing against it because we are not criminals and the item is genuine. Maybe I am misunderstanding the actual raison d'etre of FindFakes.com although their name/intentions seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Rhothgar]

Thanks for all the brilliant responses. I hope my further questions/challenges get answered so I can really get deep into this and understand it.

Why, can I ask, do other brand owner's seem not interested in protecting their trademarks?

We sell plenty of branded goods and some do not seem to worry and leave you alone.

 

[Mr D]

They use FindFakes.com on Ebay. Not sure about Amazon. Maybe the same company. This is why I am railing against it because we are not criminals and the item is genuine. Maybe I am misunderstanding the actual raison d'etre of FindFakes.com although their name/intentions seems pretty clear to me.

Multiple companies trawl amazon (and presumably elsewhere too) to find their clients stuff being sold by unknown sellers.
Some of which may well be selling fakes. Until someone knows what is being sold then all the brand owner knows is you didn't buy from them.

 

[kulture]

I believe that the Product Detail Page was actually set up by the brand owner.

It does not matter to Amazon who creates the product detail page. In theory anyone can create a Product detail page and Amazon then lets any seller list on that page so long as it is the same product. This is how the marketplace is supposed to work.

By using the product page there is absolutely no way you can be found to be infringing their copyright. Or their IP. If however you created the Product Page, and COPIED the text from their web site, then you could IN THEORY, be prosecuted for stealing their copy. MOST sensible manufacturers WANT you to use their words, but some do not. I had one supplier who would demand you take down any of THEIR pictures and not use any of THEIR copy as they wanted to sell online themselves. But no-one can stop you taking your own picture of THEIR product in order to sell it. And then writing your own words describing their product. This is fair and reasonable.

Some suppliers abuse the system to reduce and eliminate the competition. By complaining to Amazon that you are not buying the stock from an authorised source they are using Amazon to unfairly remove you from competing with them. Amazon sets the rules. It is their market. You are suffering because Amazon prefers to listen to a bigger customer than you.

Unless you can get the supplier to back down and tell Amazon you are OK, then you loose. There is no cheap way of doing this. You could spend tens of thousands of pounds taking them to court, but it is probably better to just move on.

The fundamental thing you must learn here is that this is one of the dangers of putting your business in the hands of markets you cannot control.

As for marketing, consider google ads. After all you have 15% no longer going on Amazon commission. So buying a high placed advert MIGHT be worth it.

 

[Rhothgar]

Multiple companies trawl amazon (and presumably elsewhere too) to find their clients stuff being sold by unknown sellers.
Some of which may well be selling fakes. Until someone knows what is being sold then all the brand owner knows is you didn't buy from them.

The one thing I cannot get my head around in any of this is Amazon bought the stock from the manufacterer or an authorised distributor in the first place so the manfacturer have made their money and hence why I believe the trademark is exhausted.

Or does exhaustion of trade mark only come when the end user has purchased?

 

[fisicx]

Or does exhaustion of trade mark only come when the end user has purchased?

Neither. The trademark never get exhausted. It remains valid for as long as the manufacturer wants. If you buy a dyson you don’t suddenly get authority to use the name as you want.

 

[Mr D]

The one thing I cannot get my head around in any of this is Amazon bought the stock from the manufacterer or an authorised distributor in the first place so the manfacturer have made their money and hence why I believe the trademark is exhausted.

Or does exhaustion of trade mark only come when the end user has purchased?

You as a seller can still devalue the brand by your actions.
You may have noticed some sellers on amazon sell for a LOT lower than shops do? The shops complain to the brand owner, the shops stop ordering because they cannot sell the items and the public expect all sellers to be cheap as amazon site.

 

[paulears]

Remember the old problem Tesco had selling Wrangler jeans? Genuine Wrangler, but imported direct and Wrangler did not like it, and stopped them. These same Wrangler jeans, including seconds and B grade are sold on Ebay, but the Wrangler labels are removed and generic labels sown on, and the little wrangler mislabel inside is cut out. Brand owners are very protective of their products and price point in each country.

 

[Rhothgar]

Neither. The trademark never get exhausted. It remains valid for as long as the manufacturer wants. If you buy a dyson you don’t suddenly get authority to use the name as you want.

Am I misinterpreting this then?

EDIT: Unable to post link. Please search Google for "Exhaustion of Trademark" and look at vantageasia website article.

I thought this is an EEA law whereby once a branded item is sold from either the manufacturer or a distributor, their rights have been exhausted insofar as restricting further sale of that branded item?

 

[Rhothgar]

Remember the old problem Tesco had selling Wrangler jeans? Genuine Wrangler, but imported direct and Wrangler did not like it, and stopped them. These same Wrangler jeans, including seconds and B grade are sold on Ebay, but the Wrangler labels are removed and generic labels sown on, and the little wrangler mislabel inside is cut out. Brand owners are very protective of their products and price point in each country.

I just so happened to read the case law on that the other week. It was Levis v Costco and Tesco but was specifically to be with parallel import laws as Levis refused to sell direct to Costco and Tesco but they went and seemingly employed people in the street to go into Outlet Stores in the States and ship the items to the UK in exchange for profit. A bizarre act to bypass being refused by the right's holder, Levis.

 

[Rhothgar]

Also, in the interests of clarity, I would like to add that when we listed the item, we did so at a price point some £5 cheaper than the rights' holder as we wanted to test how fast they sold as more stock was becoming available soon after.

If the Amazon block was cleared, we would list at the same price. We feel that we are forced to do this anyway but that it is a method by which the rights' holder can control the price (price-fixing).

Had we have not listed so cheaply, would they have removed us I wonder? I personally think not.

We listed the item initially as Merchant Fulfilled and then sent the remaining stock in, which is now stuck, in Amazon but that was going to be listed at RRP or close to to make it worth of while.

 

[Mr D]

Also, in the interests of clarity, I would like to add that when we listed the item, we did so at a price point some £5 cheaper than the rights' holder as we wanted to test how fast they sold as more stock was becoming available soon after.

If the Amazon block was cleared, we would list at the same price. We feel that we are forced to do this anyway but that it is a method by which the rights' holder can control the price (price-fixing).

Had we have not listed so cheaply, would they have removed us I wonder? I personally think not.

We listed the item initially as Merchant Fulfilled and then sent the remaining stock in, which is now stuck, in Amazon but that was going to be listed at RRP or close to to make it worth of while.

It does not appear to be price fixing.
That would be them telling you to use a certain price. Unless they have done that in some way you would have a hard job convincing a court they were price fixing.
Its also extremely expensive for them if they get caught doing that and they get fined.

 

[fisicx]

Am I misinterpreting this then?

Yes.

That piece of legislation refers to the reselling of items that were imported with the trademark owners permission: http://www.bdl-ip.com/upload/Etudes/uk/bdl_-exhaustion-of-trademark-rights-in-the-european-union.pdf

 

[obscure]

Could you expand on this please referring to relevant legislation clause if possible as from what I read, the alteration of a product does breach Trademark. The item has not been altered and so doesn't breach trademark. It is what it is.

A trademark is a mark used for trade - a company or product name or a logo. Use of the trademark without the owners permission is infringement. Whether or not the product was altered is irrelevant

From previous allegations (sets of August headphones), it does appear to be an issue because the manufacturer does not want to provide a warranty to an end customer if they have purchased from an unauthorised source.

Again, the existence or lack of a warranty has nothing to do with copyright/trademark infringement. It may be they don't want you undercutting other sellers/themselves and selling something that has no warranty cover so they are using a claim of infringement to stop you. But the warranty has nothing to do with copyright/trademarks.

Could you advise where this is legislated for UK please

Copyright and Trademark law - https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office

 

[Rhothgar]

A trademark is a mark used for trade - a company or product name or a logo. Use of the trademark without the owners permission is infringement. Whether or not the product was altered is irrelevant


Again, the existence or lack of a warranty has nothing to do with copyright/trademark infringement. It may be they don't want you undercutting other sellers/themselves and selling something that has no warranty cover so they are using a claim of infringement to stop you. But the warranty has nothing to do with copyright/trademarks.

Obscure. Many thanks for the further clarification on this matter. Having spoken to the UKIPO office last week, they seemed pretty unclear on why the rights holder was targetting us. They should have known this surely.

This is what has added to my confusion regarding undercutting, to me, it seems like anti-competition and price-fixing though I understand now that for price fixing they would have had to actually tell us or write down that the price must be £x for it to satisfy a breach of legislation regarding fixing.

To me, it feels as though this is a backdoor way of achieving price-fixing.

 

[fisicx]

You are going round and round the houses.

Amazon is not going to change their mind on this until the trademark holder lifts their complaint. And as that’s unlikely to happen you either need to find another selling channel or find something different to sell.

The trademark infringement is a red herring the IPO isnt going to fix for you nor is Amazon interested in persueing.

 

[Rhothgar]

You are going round and round the houses.

Amazon is not going to change their mind on this until the trademark holder lifts their complaint. And as that’s unlikely to happen you either need to find another selling channel or find something different to sell.

The trademark infringement is a red herring the IPO isnt going to fix for you nor is Amazon interested in persueing.

No I'm not. I've accepted the Amazon won't do anything. I knew that from Day One.

I also accept that the rights holder won't be helpful either.

However, I did read this earlier today:-

SA Cnl-Sucal NV v Hag GF AG ('HAG II') (C-10/89) [1990] 3 CMLR 571
The owner of an intellectual property right cannot enforce the right to prevent goods from being imported into or sold in a Member State where those particular goods have been placed on the market within the EEA by or with the consent of the rights owner. But where there is no such consent, rights can be forced.

This is the exhaustion of rights doctrine.

I was previously referring to the Trademark Exhaustion but this is what I actually meant.

So...

The goods we have purchased, in good faith, from a non authorised source with the EEA were, at one time, being sold by Amazon themselves with the UK so the rights owner must have given their permission for Amazon to sell them in the UK and therefore the rights holder's rights have been exhausted regarding prevention of sale, surely?

It went on to spell out that once the consent to market has been given and the owner has had the chance to extract a fee or deny entry at that point, the right can no longer be enforced.

Please bear with me on this on tell me that has been overridden by some later legislation or precedent. I know I need a lawyer but, as I've said, we cannot afford this or at least we need to go to one with a clear case or find someone that will take it on Pro Bono.

I note today that two of our competitors who purchase stock from the very same supplier have stock going into Amazon and are selling on the same listing as Fulfilled by Amazon.

There is something deeper to this and it feels as though we are being singled out for some unknown reason. We have a very good track record on Amazon with healthy Performance Metrics so nothing can be wrong there.

 

[Mr D]

No I'm not. I've accepted the Amazon won't do anything. I knew that from Day One.

I also accept that the rights holder won't be helpful either.

However, I did read this earlier today:-

SA Cnl-Sucal NV v Hag GF AG ('HAG II') (C-10/89) [1990] 3 CMLR 571
The owner of an intellectual property right cannot enforce the right to prevent goods from being imported into or sold in a Member State where those particular goods have been placed on the market within the EEA by or with the consent of the rights owner. But where there is no such consent, rights can be forced.

This is the exhaustion of rights doctrine.

I was previously referring to the Trademark Exhaustion but this is what I actually meant.

So...

The goods we have purchased, in good faith, from a non authorised source with the EEA were, at one time, being sold by Amazon themselves with the UK so the rights owner must have given their permission for Amazon to sell them in the UK and therefore the rights holder's rights have been exhausted regarding prevention of sale, surely?

It went on to spell out that once the consent to market has been given and the owner has had the chance to extract a fee or deny entry at that point, the right can no longer be enforced.

Please bear with me on this on tell me that has been overridden by some later legislation or precedent. I know I need a lawyer but, as I've said, we cannot afford this or at least we need to go to one with a clear case or find someone that will take it on Pro Bono.

I note today that two of our competitors who purchase stock from the very same supplier have stock going into Amazon and are selling on the same listing as Fulfilled by Amazon.

There is something deeper to this and it feels as though we are being singled out for some unknown reason. We have a very good track record on Amazon with healthy Performance Metrics so nothing can be wrong there.

it appears amazon have enforced something.
by the fact action was taken.

 

[Rhothgar]

it appears amazon have enforced something.
by the fact action was taken.

Absolutely but as you will no doubt be aware their actions may not necessarily be lawful but then again they probably don't have to be as there appears to be no recourse.

Thinking back to some of our previous exchanges, I actually recall that the rights holder reduced their price to the price we had been selling the item for previous to being removed so it is not as if we had a detrimental effect on their brand as they were only too happy to sell said product at the same price for a while. I, of course, took a screenshot for evidence just in case it is needed.

 

[Mr D]

Absolutely but as you will no doubt be aware their actions may not necessarily be lawful but then again they probably don't have to be as there appears to be no recourse.

Thinking back to some of our previous exchanges, I actually recall that the rights holder reduced their price to the price we had been selling the item for previous to being removed so it is not as if we had a detrimental effect on their brand as they were only too happy to sell said product at the same price for a while. I, of course, took a screenshot for evidence just in case it is needed.

well as you do not want to spend money on a lawyer you will not test in court whether their actions are lawful.

they decide who sells on their site, there is no right to sell on any particular 3rd party site.

and they do have a reputation of trying to avoid legal entanglements by getting the seller and the complainer to sort it out between themselves.

 

[Rhothgar]

I’d love to be able to test it but simply can not afford it so they have got me.

I’m left wondering how a solicitor can get a response from the rights holder when they won’t even reply to little old me. It would certainly make it more expensive not knowing what they are actually alleging.

If they decided to sue me for damages of some kind they would have to state clearly what their position is to enable me to respond properly.

Thereby hangs the problem. They simply cannot be forced to reply. It’s a cheap way for the rights holder to prevent either competition or whatever it is they are trying to enforce.

Frustrating!

 

[Rhothgar]

Anyway, thanks Mr. D et al for all the advice. Much appreciated.

I’m not sure there’s any more mileage in this but I hope I understand and am on the right track with my most recent post about exhaustion of rights.