The VeRO program

[craigsfinds]

ebay removed one of my listings because the Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) claimed it was counterfeit. This item was purchased at an authorized dealer for this brand. There was no explanation for the claim and no clear information on how to contact the rights owner for an explanation. How does ebay know the VeRO program is not being abused by the rights owner? 

[albertabrightalberta]

---

@craigsfinds wrote:

I don't know if it's legit but it looks and feels like a quality item. 

---

But as a seller, you have to KNOW your items are legitimate! Feeling "like a quality item" isn't good enough. 

@craigsfinds wrote:

how they could tell it was not legit just by looking at the photos. I find it odd that they appear to be uninterested in educating sellers on this matter. 

---

Seriously? Photos tell a lot! When a (supposed) NBA jersey says MBA, that's a huge red flag.

Genuine items don't have  those kinds of mistakes. (My fake A-Rod jersey had misspelled words and another Big Papi jersey had "Ed So" as the team name, rather than "Red Sox.")

If you are getting your items from the same source as the (not) Lakers jersey, VeRO was correct in their findings. 

And for the record, I authenticate handbags and designer accesssories on the fashion board and handbag boards and although a different category of items, there's NO DOUBT they can be authenticated with pictures. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@donsdetour wrote:

First due to LAW VERO is god to eBay. They say eBay acts.

---

Not exactly accurate.

Prior to the DMCA being passed in 2008, websites were exposed to potential liability when someone posted infringing content on their website even if the website had nothing to do with that content and had no way of knowing it infringed anyone's intellectual property (IP) rights.

Congress recognized (correctly, IMHO) that this was unfair to websites, because the website owner has no way to accurately assess the IP status of every single word, phrase, or sentence posted to their site. And even if they could, it would be cost-prohibitive for a lot of websites.

So Congress passed the DMCA to address this issue by providing websites with "safe harbor" protection from liability - as long they agreed to remove the infringing content in a timely manner upon receipt of a notice of claimed infringement (NOCI). 

The idea was that since the website had no way of assessing the IP status of the original content OR the validity of the NOCI claim, they could still be protected from liability if they removed the content while the two parties involved resolved their differences. (In this case, the two parties are the seller and the VERO member who  filed the NOCI).

So the law does not *require* eBay to remove the alleged infringement, it simply gives websites like eBay a mechanism to avoid liability under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

I have no doubt that eBay's legal department are the ones who insisted that eBay needed to set up the VERO program and take advantage of the liability shield being offered by the DMCA. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@craigsfinds wrote:

I don't know if it's legit but it looks and feels like a quality item.

---

Oh for heaven's sake.

The NBA does not license shirts with "NBA" spelled wrong.

[donsdetour]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@donsdetour wrote:

First due to LAW VERO is god to eBay. They say eBay acts.

---

Not exactly accurate.

Prior to the DMCA being passed in 2008, websites were exposed to potential liability when someone posted infringing content on their website even if the website had nothing to do with that content and had no way of knowing it infringed anyone's intellectual property (IP) rights.

Congress recognized (correctly, IMHO) that this was unfair to websites, because the website owner has no way to accurately assess the IP status of every single word, phrase, or sentence posted to their site. And even if they could, it would be cost-prohibitive for a lot of websites.

So Congress passed the DMCA to address this issue by providing websites with "safe harbor" protection from liability - as long they agreed to remove the infringing content in a timely manner upon receipt of a notice of claimed infringement (NOCI). 

The idea was that since the website had no way of assessing the IP status of the original content OR the validity of the NOCI claim, they could still be protected from liability if they removed the content while the two parties involved resolved their differences. (In this case, the two parties are the seller and the VERO member who  filed the NOCI).

So the law does not *require* eBay to remove the alleged infringement, it simply gives websites like eBay a mechanism to avoid liability under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA.

I have no doubt that eBay's legal department are the ones who insisted that eBay needed to set up the VERO program and take advantage of the liability shield being offered by the DMCA. 

---

VERO was set up after losing a few law suits by rights holders way back.

It was the beginning of the fail of the "just a venue" status eBay use to use for such problems.

[luckythewinner]

---

@donsdetour wrote:

VERO was set up after losing a few law suits by rights holders way back.

It was the beginning of the fail of the "just a venue" status eBay use to use for such problems.

---

Exactly.

They would be expected to lose such lawsuits because at the time they had no liability shield against infringement claims that arose from the actions of their users.

eBay has 1.5 billion items listed, and has absolutely no way to correctly assess the IP status of every single one of them.

In this instance eBay really is "just a venue", and users should not be able to put eBay in legal jeopardy simply by posting a listing. Because eBay does not have an expert trained to spot fakes for every single brand, every single manufacturer, every single publisher, or every single record label on the planet. Nor should they be expected to.

I am the VERO representative for a couple music artists, and I can guarantee you there is no way anyone at eBay would know which CDs and DVDs infringe their IP and which ones don't. And the artists I represent should not have to put up with bootlegs being sold on eBay simply because it is cost-prohibitive to sue a every single seller over every single listing.

[donsdetour]

---

@luckythewinner wrote:

---

@donsdetour wrote:

VERO was set up after losing a few law suits by rights holders way back.

It was the beginning of the fail of the "just a venue" status eBay use to use for such problems.

---

Exactly.

They would be expected to lose such lawsuits because at the time they had no liability shield against infringement claims that arose from the actions of their users.

eBay has 1.5 billion items listed, and has absolutely no way to correctly assess the IP status of every single one of them.

In this instance eBay really is "just a venue", and users should not be able to put eBay in legal jeopardy simply by posting a listing. Because eBay does not have an expert trained to spot fakes for every single brand, every single manufacturer, every single publisher, or every single record label on the planet. Nor should they be expected to.

I am the VERO representative for a couple music artists, and I can guarantee you there is no way anyone at eBay would know which CDs and DVDs infringe their IP and which ones don't. And the artists I represent should not have to put up with bootlegs being sold on eBay simply because it is cost-prohibitive to sue a every single seller over every single listing.

---

Yep there is not way eBay and others could hire enough "experts" to say.  So it is now under the rights holders to say yes or no; (no way for eBay to know if real or fake)... Such is as it should be.

This is why I say VERO is god to eBay. They say eBay does.

On has to take it up with the VERO to fight such claims as eBay can not do much.

To the OP:

as I said there are ways and even times to fight such. In most cases it is not worth the cost of a sale to do so... Just saying.

[a*river*runs*through*it]

The player has a Masters in Basketball Administration.

[craigsfinds]

Yes, it should be up to the rights holders to determine fake or real. However, they should be able to support their claim. The last time this happened, I contacted the rights holder and the explanation was that I was not authorized to sell the item in the UK but the claim was the item was fake. LOL! In this case, I did not even get contact information for the rights holder. ebay CS said they would send me the info. but nothing yet. 🙄

[albertabrightalberta]

---

@craigsfinds wrote:

 In this case, I did not even get contact information for the rights holder. ebay CS said they would send me the info. but nothing yet. 🙄

---

Unfortunately, from what has been shown, it doesn't look like you have a case because it's very obvious that your items (or at least the one I found) are fake. 

There have been cases in which VeRO counternotices have been successful. A number of years ago, Gucci UK was reporting and removing known authentic items because they didn't want them resold by "unauthorized resellers." 

When a class action lawsuit was threatened, Gucci UK backed down, notified ebay that the listings were legal and authentic and they were reinstated. At the time, one of my listings was removed and subsequently reinstated. 

Another time, I had a VeRO removal of a Bvlgari item. I knew it was authentic, contacted them through the info in the email, sent pictures and information needed to prove authenticity and they contacted ebay allowing the item to be reinstated. Then ebay sent a message letting me know the item was removed in error and could be relisted.

But the difference between those cases and yours is that I knew my items were authentic and had a legitimate appeal. 

My recommendation to you is to file a claim or dispute against your supplier. 

[craigsfinds]

"Unfortunately, from what has been shown, it doesn't look like you have a case because it's very obvious that your items (or at least the one I found) are fake. " 

You must be confusing me with a post from someone else on this thread. I have not shown my item or given any specific information about my item. 

[a*river*runs*through*it]

"You must be confusing me with a post from someone else on this thread. I have not shown my item or given any specific information about my item."

Did you miss the picture of your clearly fake jersey that says MBA in post #14? Do you think that is a legitimate jersey?

[luckythewinner]

---

@craigsfinds wrote:

"Unfortunately, from what has been shown, it doesn't look like you have a case because it's very obvious that your items (or at least the one I found) are fake. " 

You must be confusing me with a post from someone else on this thread. I have not shown my item or given any specific information about my item. 

---

You don't have to show your item or give us information about them.

By clicking on your user name on your post, everyone on this board can see exactly what you have listed.

The post being referenced shows one of your current listings which anyone here can verify is clearly a fake Lakers jersey. In fact, you have two fake Lakers jerseys listed. 

[a*river*runs*through*it]

BINGO!

[craigsfinds]

Oh, I see! **bleep**. Thanks for the heads up. : )

[a*river*runs*through*it]

If something that glaringly obvious can get by you, maybe you should rethink listing anything licensed.