Vionic Verification Request

[freelandendeavorsllc]

I just received the attached notice from a VantageBP, LLC company acting under the authorization of VCG Holdings LTD(Vionic) about my Vionic listings asking for some information such as identifying my source of goods, invoices and contact information. Has anyone received this recently? Aren't I protected by the "First Sale Doctrine"? Is this some sort of scare tactic and I just should ignore it or wait until they go through eBay's VeRo channels? Thank you!

[rfmtm]

Is Vionic even a shoe that is faked?

[freelandendeavorsllc]

No, I wouldn't think so. Not a very popular brand and they're not that expensive. I've never seen a fake pair of Vionic shoes.

[dirk12955]

That was part on my point earlier today.   We're talking about well under $1,000.00 in merchandise.   How much time and expense is this vionic company going to expend to pursue this?

Before this thread I'd never heard of Vantage or Vionic.

That "Penalty of Perjury" line in that letter really cracks me up.       Perjury?     I'm no lawyer,   Don't you have to be sworn in and giving false testimony in court to commit perjury?

You can Lie,   fib,   falsify,  defraud,  misrepresent,  imitate,  bend the truth,    but need to go a little further 

 in your experience to commit perjury.

Why does this form letter that isn't even addressed to the OP (or anybody else for that matter)  not specifically

 mention where the OP is selling or what he's selling?

ATTENTION:  MARKET PLACE SELLER

Form letter.   And a poorly produced form letter at that.      

[a_c_green]

---

@freelandendeavorsllc wrote:

I just received the attached notice from a VantageBP, LLC company acting under the authorization of VCG Holdings LTD(Vionic) about my Vionic listings asking for some information such as identifying my source of goods, invoices and contact information. Has anyone received this recently?

---

Oh, no, not that knucklehead again... I see from searching the company name that he's burped out another round of annoy-o-grams to more than one seller today.

Here is a good discussion about him from last September that you may want to read: 

https://community.ebay.com/t5/Fashion/Received-a-Verification-Request-eBay-message-from-a-vendor-doi... 

Basically he's an entrepreneur who's set up an operation to send out threatening messages to sellers of various brands. He has apparently persuaded those companies that there's a lot of counterfeiting of their products going on out there (which may or may not be true, of course, depending on the brand), and presumably gets paid for each seller he can uncover. As his own letter admits, he has no idea whether the items are genuine, but feels that he can demand your records anyway. I suspect he will get paid for the letter, not for any results that it may or may not produce.

Unless you're in the habit of revealing your business details and inventory sources to anyone who sends you a PDF image of a generic demand letter, I would ignore it. There is no reply to that which will make him go away; it will only entice him to continue if he thinks you're on the hook. There are legitimate ways to go about serving legal notice to someone, and sneaking an image of a letter to that person in email is not one of them.

[slippinjimmy]

@luckythewinnercovered most of the important details but left one out......

The "trolls" that send out these notices "usually" do so because they don't actually have a leg to stand on.

If they were operating as they should they would file an infringement claim through eBay which would ensure your listing is removed immediately. When they don't it's likely because there is no actual infringement in legal terms and they are just trying to intimidate you.

Prior to the existence of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act this type of letter/notice were common because the alternative was to actually initiate legal action (expensive). With the DMCA in effect they can very easily have offending material removed at virtually zero cost.

They want you to tell them your source so that they can go after THAT person/company in their attempt to control the market and maintain pricing levels.

Companies such as this try to  control the market. It is something they can enforce against their distributors or retailers that have a CONTRACT with Vionic but legally they can't impose that on independent third parties such as a random eBay seller.

WARNING: this is not always the case

[maxine*j]

---

@m60driver wrote:

---

@maxine*j wrote:

You asked about the First Sale Doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109.  

The doctrine gives you the right to resell an item that you bought for your personal use, when you no longer want the item.

It does not protect you against claims made of manufacturers, publishers, et al, about items that you bought for the purpose of reselling.

---

The interpretation of the first sale doctrine, the "gray" market, continues to be a gray area of law.  Several years ago Costco went to court and won their case for the right to sell diverted goods.  Costco still sells diverted goods but did lose a recent case in a Canadian court.

But crikey, even importers of inexpensive footwear are jumping on this bandwagon of litigating against reselling as they imagine that it will lessen the customer experience and somehow lessen the brand.  I would only respond to the letter with a single sentence indicating that to avoid any "further escalation" the items are being removed from Ebay as I would take the inventory off of Ebay and sell it elsewhere.  If Vionic wanted to fight this in court, well they can hire more expensive lawyers than any small Ebay seller and in the US money almost always wins, especially in cases where the law remains ambiguous and so very expensive appeals can be expected.

---

OP asked.  I answered.  I thought he didn't know the fundamentals, although a later post made me think he did, thus baffling me. 

Anyhow, yes, crikey, indeed.  For a long time, but especially since 1998, the doctine has been challenged from many directions.  Actually,  I'd say it's being methodically eroded, and I think it's a shame (if not downright shameful).

-

[albertabrightalberta]

---

@maxine*j wrote:

You asked about the First Sale Doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109.  

The doctrine gives you the right to resell an item that you bought for your personal use, when you no longer want the item.

It does not protect you against claims made of manufacturers, publishers, et al, about items that you bought for the purpose of reselling.

That is not advice in this case, by the way, it's just information about the First Sale Doctrine, because you asked.

---

That's not correct. 

First sale doctrine allows you to do whatever you want with an item that was obtained through legitimate sources. 

Unless one has a contract with the manufacturer that denies them the right to resell on an online marketplace, it CAN be resold. (Of course, this wouldn't apply to prescription drugs or any other item that is prohibited.)

[albertabrightalberta]

---

@m60driver wrote:

---

---

  And somehow that company had my full name and email address although they had never purchased anything from me from Ebay.  I don't quite understand how they obtained that information unless it was provided to them by Ebay, an action that might violate privacy laws.  

---

My guess is that they had a friend/relative/cohort make a purchase from you, at which point they got your name and address from the shipping label.

[maxine*j]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@maxine*j wrote:

You asked about the First Sale Doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109.  

The doctrine gives you the right to resell an item that you bought for your personal use, when you no longer want the item.

It does not protect you against claims made of manufacturers, publishers, et al, about items that you bought for the purpose of reselling.

That is not advice in this case, by the way, it's just information about the First Sale Doctrine, because you asked.

---

That's not correct. 

First sale doctrine allows you to do whatever you want with an item that was obtained through legitimate sources. 

Unless one has a contract with the manufacturer that denies them the right to resell on an online marketplace, it CAN be resold. (Of course, this wouldn't apply to prescription drugs or any other item that is prohibited.)

---

The simple first sale doctrine is being challenged vigorously, by people with pockets that are both deep and wide, as I said in another post.  The first sale doctrine was never quite as simple as it seemed, and every tiny weakness in it is being exploited. 

So, I agree that you might very well win claims against you, but no longer with a simple recitation of the first sale doctrine and no longer without a fight which, alas, few of us have the resources to engage in.  Stinks.

=

[bashort]

---

@freelandendeavorsllc wrote:

Where do you see that it does not protect reselling? To my understanding, it protects anyone who has ownership of the product as acquired through legal means to sell as seen fit. Thanks

---

I skimmed through that and I do not see anything about if it was purchased for private use or for resale.

[freelandendeavorsllc]

Yes, this is exactly what I thought. Thank you!

[freelandendeavorsllc]

Thank you! As did I and I also checked out multiple iterations of "First Sale Doctrine" with their own verbiage from various sources and none of them lead me to believe anything otherwise. 

[rfmtm]

Yes, the First Sale Doctrine has be battered about over the last several years, creating some gray areas.  I think one of the first was Dunkin' Donuts against those reselling their bags of coffee online.  It was a pretty ridiculous case, but the court let them get away with it.  And while others followed trying to ride on the Dunkin' case, most did not succeed, while others thought up some new ploys.  Still for the most part the Doctrine does still prevail.

The biggest problem is that ebay more or less uses their own rules, which they can since it is their site.  So you can't really go after ebay.  You have to take on the abusers directly.  Fortunately, those that know they are in the wrong often back down when they are confronted.  Unfortunately, most casual sellers don't know their rights, or where to turn for help, and the bullies count on that and being able to scare them into submission.

[slippinjimmy]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@m60driver wrote:

---

---

  And somehow that company had my full name and email address although they had never purchased anything from me from Ebay.  I don't quite understand how they obtained that information unless it was provided to them by Ebay, an action that might violate privacy laws.  

---

My guess is that they had a friend/relative/cohort make a purchase from you, at which point they got your name and address from the shipping label.

---

Name and address plus proof of the sale. Also having the item in hand they may from serial or lot numbers be able to identify the leaky sub-distributor because THAT is who they are really after.

[oldwestgold]

I wouldn't bother contacting them if you are not doing anything illegal. They can ask all they want. They don't own you or your small business. It looks like you sell mainly pre-owned items. None of their business then. They are fishing, in my opinion. Who knows even if the letter is legit. File 13.  Again, just my professional opinion of owning and running a business for over 45 years. My advice should not be considered legal advice.