Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) policy

[yesbestvalue]

I repeatedly have listings removed for items I have legally purchased and am reselling.  I buy various items at a lower cost and then resell them at a slightly higher price.  This is how I am attempting to make money.

I have the right to resell items I have legally purchased on the "First Sale Doctrine," but I'll have a listing removed from time to time, still claiming "Copyright infringement." 

It does no good contacting vero@ebay.com or the email that made the false claim against my listing.  I just get a canned response with no accurate information.  

My listing is just removed, and I am threatened about my account being closed if I relist.

Can we, as sellers, take no legal action in defense of our right to resell?  Does eBay not defend the sellers? 

Is eBay just a lost cause?

[toomuchstuffagain35]

The whole point is that there are companies out there abusing the principles of VERO.

With the exception of goods which are basically just licences to use the goods (like software etc) the FS Doctrine emphasises that no company has the right to restrict the sales of their goods in perpetuity.

Once sold the current owner has the right to dispose of those goods however they may choose.

[yesbestvalue]

sapphire_studio

In my reply, I meant "We" as everyone here in the community, not you specifically.

As I said, I feel your pain and this is unjust.

[toomuchstuffagain35]

I've had items removed under VERO as counterfeit which is vaguely hysterical unless Walmart is selling counterfeits (and the items in question are highly unlikely to be attractive fodder to counterfeiters anyway).

I did the usual thing of contacting the rights owner (or in these cases their 'agents') with no response, then contacted ebay who also had no response from them and basically be told too sad too bad.

Not worth the hassle of following through counter notices and such for basically one or two such items bought for resale. There are plenty of other places where they can be (and have been) listed instead.

[retro_entertainment_collectibles]

---

@yesbestvalue wrote:

Thank you for your intelligent answer; I understand your words and appreciate the reply.

I am just frustrated with the matter.  I understand why VeRO was written; they had good intentions.  It was to guarantee the validity of the product.

It is just now that it is being abused, and the small reseller is taking the fall for this.  I am building a business using Retail arbitrage.

"What is retail arbitrage? Arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets"

I spend time searching for products, researching, and listing on sites such as eBay, and I get angry when my listing is removed because it is being accused of being counterfeit when it is not; it is genuine.

How can the small seller build his business when they constantly have to deal with these accusations and have the listing removed? 

What is even more frustrating is when one of my listings gets removed, then I search on eBay, and I find hundreds of the same item being listed and sold.

Small sellers like us should band together on this.  I am sure I am not the first one displaying my anger about the abuse of the VeRO program.  We need to find a solution, and write our senators/congressmen something.

---

Yep, however every retailer of any size has reseller policies which a reseller is to ask about.  Walmart, Target, BestBuy are not in the business of supplying external resellers with product for intent of resale.  Goodwill for example could care less.

It is especially significant when buying new product on sale as those sales at say Walmart are goods consigned to Walmart by the property rights holder and distributors for specific promotional aspects towards consumers.  They are not putting say some video game or shoes on sale so a reseller can make a living.

As one member posted First Sale Doctrine is very old legislation and in a court will not hold up when a person is using retail promotional sales to resell items and make a living.  The first question any court will ask is where is you're resale certificate and have you been presenting it to the retailers?

Legally its not illegal to do however the entities charged with protecting the brand and/or retailer tend be external law firms, its literally what they do.  They do not seek damages as a result of the resellers direct action of resale.  What they do is go after it from a vantage point of a reseller buying things up on sale, promotional and consumers being denied inventory due to the reseller thus denying the ability of consumers to obtain said merchandise.  Seldom if ever does it go into a court of law as the law firms know the reseller has no leg stand on as a reseller should be getting inventory the same way the retailer does.

First Sale Doctrine was never intended to allow someone to COMPETE against the SOURCE of said items NOR does any judge construe it to be that.

What these firms ARE able to get is paid for their time in protecting the rights holder(s) and it's VERY expensive.

[rfmtm]

Retail arbitrage is clearly allowed in the USA and UK and is certainly a viable business for many.  If you have some reference to the contrary, please post it.

If a brand wants to restrict their resales, they can, but they have to do it by restricting their own contracted resellers.  They can not force their in house policies onto non contracted resellers like the op. 

They also just can't claim copyright infringement to take down a listing, unless there actually is infringement.

[harvestmoon_primitives]

m60driver you are CORRECT. I had one item removed and I called ebay trust and safety as I had rock solid proof it was NOT counterfeit and was purchased legit, and once they knew this they began to back pedal and say "oh it doesn't necessarily mean it is counterfeit, just that its origins can't be verified"  Of course I COULD verify the origins and there really should not have been any question of said items "origins"
The whole Vero is one sided, often policed by bots and a good many times the companies that are hitting sellers with Vero are not even on ebays Vero list! 

[harvestmoon_primitives]

No one said counterfeit, A good many are for copyright infringement. For instance your listing for "Disney 5" Doll Playset Lot BELLE CINDERELLA MOANA" is in direct violation of vero copyright infringement and open to vero removal because you are using "Disney" in your title and description. 
Point being no listing is safe and no seller is perfect it can happen to ANY seller! Even farmer Bob who has 5 acres of Apple trees and wants to sell his bountiful harvest, so he creates a listing with the word Apple....oops in violation of Vero. You get the point here I am sure.

[harvestmoon_primitives]

You are very correct about the scammers doing the ole switcheroo, however if a person orders from a website or is part of a subscription plan (those things can be super hard to get cancelled) and have items on hand and knows precisely where they obtained the item and the item is still sealed then it is not a fake item unless the company is selling fake items! Also there are many places to verify validity/freshness of item, websites and of course authentication websites for higher end items BUT even in those cases the items are still subject to vero either by them claiming copyright or claiming fake when they have no basis to claim fake. And I realize there are a LOT of bad sellers but there are a LOT of good sellers as well that try to make sure items are legit.
I think the whole point is about how vero is abusing the practice of its intended purpose and how selling ANYTHING here anymore is like a game of Russian Roulette and no one knows what item or which seller will be targeted.  And eventually if allowed to continue places such as ebay will not longer exist in the same form as they do now, the little guy/gal will be out.

[fab_finds4u]

My friend purchased Nike sneakers from Footlocker for his son. Son didn't  like them. He 

put them for sale on eBay. They were removed for being counterfeit. He supplied receipt and copy of his CC statement showing the purchase. They still insisted they were fake and was a Vero takedown and couldn't  be sold. 

I sent him an article how to spot the fake in the style he purchased. THEY WERE FAKE.  OH, but how could that be because we all know Footlocker doesn't sell fake!  At least they don't  think they do but when someone buys new sneakers and returns fake the clerks don't always know how to tell fake from real and they go back in stock.

So, yes you can THINK you legally purchased them but if they were fake the sale was illegal. There's  been lots of sneakers that didn't pass Authentication because the seller thought they were real because they purchased them from a known shoe store and not the Flea Market.

[short_circuit.lineman61]

**bleep**

[m60driver]

---

@retro_entertainment_collectibles wrote:

---

---

Walmart, Target, BestBuy are not in the business of supplying external resellers with product for intent of resale.  Goodwill for example could care less.

The first question any court will ask is where is you're resale certificate and have you been presenting it to the retailers?

Legally its not illegal to do however the entities charged with protecting the brand and/or retailer tend be external law firms, its literally what they do.  They do not seek damages as a result of the resellers direct action of resale.  What they do is go after it from a vantage point of a reseller buying things up on sale, promotional and consumers being denied inventory due to the reseller thus denying the ability of consumers to obtain said merchandise.  Seldom if ever does it go into a court of law as the law firms know the reseller has no leg stand on as a reseller should be getting inventory the same way the retailer does.

First Sale Doctrine was never intended to allow someone to COMPETE against the SOURCE of said items NOR does any judge construe it to be that.

---

First, all the major retailers you mentioned are in the business of selling goods and none care a whit that someone is going to resell the items as clearly a reseller would have to sell at  a higher price.  And it is not the large retail shops that are bringing suits or asking Ebay to remove listings.

Second, the retail certificate is only used by states to allow someone not to pay state sales tax. 

Again, the first sale doctrine simply states that one can purchase an item legally and then resell it it at later point in time.   The "source" of an item is the manufacturer who usually sells to a wholesaler.  They already got their profits from that original sale.

[maxine*j]

Yes, but retail arbitrage, which OP says is his business model, cannot be used to infringe rights by way of an unauthorized offer to sell.   Do most trademark holders care?   No.   Will most of them bother to go after a small time seller offering a few dozens of items, even if they do care?   No. 

But any good commercial lawyer will tell you that those engaged in retail arbitrage (and in drop-shipping, too, by the way)  must research branded products to see if the brand has established a requirement for resellers to apply as authorized resellers.  (And, if so, to avoid those brands or get a "letter of authorization" to resell them.)  Brands have established that they suffer losses through brand dilution, unsatisfactory customer experiences, etc., and control those losses by controlling who can resell their goods.

All this is of very little concern to most eBay sellers.   And, yes, VeRO is  misused.  And, yes, the First Sale Doctrine is under relentless attack by the megacorporations.   And yes, I consider many provisions of the DMCA dangerous and wrong.  And I  don't like a lot of the MMA.   And I could go on.  But knowledge is power and the only weapon against all this.

-

-

[theteamsetguy]

This case doesn't seem to apply to your situation. The ruling is for products incorporated in a manufacturers  products in this case a automobile. The owners of the Blue Tooth Technology has a requirement that when its technology is added to another product testing is required. 

In your case you bought something with the sole purposes of reselling it for a profit without altering it. The first sale doctrine applies when someone purchases a products to personally consume and later decides they no longer want to it anymore to sell it. It doesn't apply to sellers who buy products for the purpose of resale. 

This why many companies like Apple have Authorized Resellers. Vero is used to protect brands who's owners have spent many dollars promoting. Many companies are VERY protective, as well they should of their investment in creating a popular brand. They don't want any Tom, Dick, and Harry to come along selling their products and ruining their brand equity.

[theteamsetguy · Accepted solution]

I agree with m60driver that their is no difference between a consumer who purchased an item with the INTENSION of using it and later resold it.

The key word is INTENSION. In your case you purchased item without any INTENSION of using it but with the sole purpose of resale. 

[yesbestvalue]

No, No, No, again, Maxine, you're mistaken.

The main point of VeRO is to point against counterfeiting.  If I legally purchase these items, and they are valid, what is the problem?  

Retail arbratage is a legal activity that thrives on eBay as a revenue generator.  You can argue this all day long, but you will not change my stance on this as I have done much research myself and have spoken with legal counsel, and I know specific facts to be true.

Many of the facts you are putting out are valid in the case of wholesalers, but as in the case of a reseller, many of your facts do not apply.

Please research your facts before you point them out to other resellers.