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!

[divwido]

Are they VERO?    They are telling you to stop, I don't think I'd ignore that.

[freelandendeavorsllc]

No, Vionic is not on the Vero list. After some Googling, I saw that another seller received this letter last year and they were advised to ignore it by the community and by one of eBay's own Vero members. However, they did not include a picture of the notice so I don't know if the notice I received is more substantiated.

[maxine*j]

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.

=

[freelandendeavorsllc]

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

[m60driver]

---

@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.

[jasmen@ebay]

Hey there @freelandendeavorsllc sorry you're running into this! If the messages don't come from our VERO team then you don't technically have to take action. Sometimes the verified rights owners may reach out to you directly before getting eBay involved, but until eBay reaches out to you specifically we can't enforce anything. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@freelandendeavorsllc wrote:

No, Vionic is not on the Vero list.

---

You should not be using the "VERO list" to determine whether a company is represented in VERO.

Inclusion on that list is voluntary, and VERO members must chose to be included on the list. 

I am a VERO representative for several music artists, and none of them appear on the VERO list. 

[freelandendeavorsllc]

Yes, I understand that being on the VERO list is an elective. Someone had asked if they were on VERO and from what I can see, they are not.

[m60driver]

---

jasmen@ebay wrote:

Hey there @freelandendeavorsllc sorry you're running into this! If the messages don't come from our VERO team then you don't technically have to take action. Sometimes the verified rights owners may reach out to you directly before getting eBay involved, but until eBay reaches out to you specifically we can't enforce anything. 

---

Last year I received a similar letter from a company that was not on the Vero list.  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.  I suspect that when Ebay receives a boilerplate demand letter asking for that type of personal information they just bend over backwards and provide it rather than risk legal entanglements.

[natoman777]

I just googled earthed it... it was a vacant building at the time.  Doesn't look like a place that would be a headquarters for anyone.  I think it is a scam.  I would suggest NOT giving out personal information

[freelandendeavorsllc]

Yes, looking at their location on Google, it looks rather shady. 

[fashunu4eeuh]

If this letter came by any method other than registered mail thru USPS, i would disregard. They don’t call you by name, and there is no phone number given. It is questionable at best.

[rfmtm]

If you are certain you have authentic legally obtained items with no restricting contract with the manufacturer, you can legally sell them as long as you don't otherwise infringe on the owner's rights.  

If they wanted your items taken down, they would have first gone through VeRO, which is free, rather than waste time and money using the legal system.   Note, that the VeRO system is often abused, but there are remedies to fight back. 

[freelandendeavorsllc]

I agree that they should go through the VeRO process.

I have 27 pairs of Vionic shoes in stock at the moment. 1 is new and the rest are pre-owned, all sourced from thrift stores and owned by me. I don't see how I could be in the wrong here.