Many sellers have received fraudulent takedown actions by Corsearch, Coty Cosmetics and Wella Beauty Product brands like Covergirl. Reply to the VeRO email and send to the following email addresses:
vero@ebay.com
legal@ebay. com
satoru.ogawa@corsearch.com He is the COO at Corsearch
Abel.clark@corsearch.com He is the CEO at Corsearch
Search the internet or LinkedIn for the CEO of the brand which VeROed you to find their email address and name. Include their email address also on the email.
Don’t waste your time filing out Corsearch’s bogus information page link you receive. Go to the top.
When I remind eBay of their lawsuit with L’Oréal and what the court ruled below, my listings are usually reinstated without having to deal with the bottom feeders at Corsearch and their finger pointing. Corsearch’s attorneys slept thru “Due Diligence 101” in law school. Corsearch also thinks they are above the law, above the DMCA and the “Right of First Sale Doctrine”. Let eBay know Corsearch is abusing the VeRO reporting system and wasting eBay resources all so Corsearch can pad their billings to their clients and fatten their wallet.
Why does Corsearch not any of their clients ever take sellers to court? Because both parties know they will loose their asses in court. Legitimate brand owners who want to truly protect their brands will have their attorney issue a cease and desist letter first. The trademark or copy write owner will also make sure they have their IP rights filed with the USTO or USCO as this a requirement before they can file a lawsuit. Infringer doesn’t comply with C&D letter, property owner will file a lawsuit. Popular trademark bullies who do this are Otterbox, Nike, Adidas, and Popsockets. Most of Corsearch’s clients don’t have their intellectual property rights registered with the US offices or the EEA or each EU country. This proves Corsearch is nothing more than a bottom feeding bully engaging in fraud, deceptive trade practices and circumventing the laws to get rid of competition and unauthorized sellers.
L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG
eBay argued that an owner of a trademark, such as L’Oréal is not entitled to that right when the goods bearing its trademark are located in a third State and will not necessarily be forwarded to the territory covered by the trademark in question. L’Oréal, on the other hand, contended that the right to prevent the sale of its goods are triggered as soon as it is clear that offer for sale is targeted at consumers within the EU zone, even if the trademark products are located in a third State. The Court made it clear that “the mere fact that a website is accessible from the territory covered by the trademark is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the offers for sale displayed there are targeted at consumers in that territory.” [para. 64] The Court indeed ruled that it is for the national court to assess a particular offer for sale in order to identify sufficient facts evidencing that the transaction was targeted at consumers in the territory, including the geographic area to which the seller is willing to ship the product.
