12-01-2018 08:48 PM - edited 12-01-2018 08:48 PM
Hi,
I just received a letter from Vorys,Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Legal Counsel through fedex over night priority mail with no signature confirmation saying cease and desist of selling of Zebra products.
Do i need to take this letter seriously? i google it some says yes and some says no its just a spam.
letter says am not not authorized seller. remove all prodouct from storefront parmentaly and stop selling.
Am getting these product from auction/ebay and list these used and some open box(new other) and also mention in listing "This is a genuine Zebra Product purchased by me, from a reputable company. Because I am not affiliated in anyway with Zebra Technologies Corporation and its affiliates, including ZIH corp. and did not purchase this item directly from them, any warranties normally offered by Zebra Technologies Corporation and its affiliates, including ZIH corp. for these products will not be valid."
My question is : can i resale these Zebra Printer as used? i also attached the letter received.
Thank you
12-03-2018 01:50 AM
12-03-2018 04:33 AM
Seems fishy, zebra is a huge company, they could simply go through ebays vero program, proper channels.
12-03-2018 05:11 AM
I'm not sure they are claiming fake. It mentions interference with a contract which more implies working with an authorized dealer to sell on eBay. The interference with a contract would be if the op knows the person they are buying from has a contact to sell with zebra but the op and that person have a deal made with buying and selling on here. If that's the case yes I would stop. If the resource for these is questionable I'd likely stop. I wouldn't respond either as requested though. Along with that if I knew They were legit items and I wasn't interfering with a contract between someone else and zebra I might not care but it's up to the op on whether they want to stop or not.
12-03-2018 05:12 AM
Oh and as long as they aren't actually accusing of the items being fake and are claiming interference with a contract they shouldn't use vero for that.
12-03-2018 05:31 AM
I would contact zebra directly to validate its authenticity.
12-03-2018 05:50 AM
My wife sells handbags here on Ebay, she had an auction removed by EBAY and the attached message said one of her handbags was a counterfeit and that is why the auction was removed. She called customer service for an explanation and they told my wife the name of the handbag was not shown in the pictures. (in fact, the name was prominently shown in several photos) She relisted the handbag with plenty more pictures and this time her account was suspended. My point is if something is fake or counterfeit, the person making the accusation usually informs ebay about it and lets ebay act according, which they did in our case. I would question the authenticity of any letter recieved from anyone except ebay.
12-03-2018 06:10 AM
@vanman1029 wrote:My wife sells handbags here on Ebay, she had an auction removed by EBAY and the attached message said one of her handbags was a counterfeit and that is why the auction was removed. She called customer service for an explanation and they told my wife the name of the handbag was not shown in the pictures. (in fact, the name was prominently shown in several photos) She relisted the handbag with plenty more pictures and this time her account was suspended. My point is if something is fake or counterfeit, the person making the accusation usually informs ebay about it and lets ebay act according, which they did in our case. I would question the authenticity of any letter recieved from anyone except ebay.
They don't seem to be accusing of it being fake or counterfeit The letter states its because the op isn't authorized to sell the product and mentions contract interference. Vero isn't supposed to be used for that so it wouldn't be reported through them. I do find the not being authorized making it materially different and thus trademark infringement pushing it.
12-03-2018 07:11 AM - edited 12-03-2018 07:15 AM
"They don't seem to be accusing of it being fake or counterfeit The letter states its because the op isn't authorized to sell the product and mentions contract interference. "
----------
They are using the new hook.
They are saying, they are not genuine... because genuine products also carry Zebra's warranty and quality control standards.
It's the new way to get around the first sale doctrine.
I'd suggest the OP get a good attorney immediately.
Google: Vory's Cease and Desist
You'll find Vory's IS suing many many resellers including on Amazon.
Vorys is a prominent law firm, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, with over 375 attorneys, and a large Intellectual Property, Entertainment, and Technology Protection division.
https://www.vorys.com/services-ip.html10
Their notices are 100% legit.
Pull your listings.
Do not contact Vory's yourself without an attorney.
Get an attorney.
Follow your attorney's advice.
Lynn
12-03-2018 07:14 AM - edited 12-03-2018 07:16 AM
@18704d wrote:
"They don't seem to be accusing of it being fake or counterfeit The letter states its because the op isn't authorized to sell the product and mentions contract interference. "
----------
They are using the new hook.
They are saying, they are not genuine... because genuine products also carry Zebra's warranty and quality control standards.
It's the new way to get around the first sale doctrine.
I'd suggest the OP get a good attorney immediately.
Google: Vory's Cease and Desist
You'll find Vory's IS suing many many resellers including on Amazon.
Vorys is a prominent law firm, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, with over 375 attorneys, and a large Intellectual Property, Entertainment, and Technology Protection division.
https://www.vorys.com/services-ip.html10
Their notices are 100% legit.
Pull your listings.
Do not contact Vory's.
Get an attorney.
Follow your attorney's advice.
Lynn
yeah thats the way I read it as well. Personally I hope they don't succeed in winning because if they win they will create a new precedent that is unfair in my opinion.
12-03-2018 07:18 AM
It's not the winning that is the focus for the OP.
It's the near-infinite cost of going to federal court.
I've been a defendant in a federal lawsuit.
Our family spent over 100 thousand dollars in legal fees getting the lawsuit against us dropped.
Lynn
12-03-2018 07:23 AM
@18704d wrote:
It's not the winning that is the focus for the OP.
It's the near-infinite cost of going to federal court.
I've been a defendant in a federal lawsuit.
Our family spent over 100 thousand dollars in legal fees getting the lawsuit against us dropped.
Lynn
I meant I hope they don't end up winning any of the cases that get that far. Not necessarily the OPs going that far. Even one case being won sets a whole new precedent for cases that could be devestating for resell.
12-03-2018 07:23 AM
And I should have said,
to win, the OP would need to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars.
I'd wager at least a 5 thousand dollar retainer to even the most basic attorney.
They would most certainly spend another 10 thousand in attorney fees in the next few months reacting to Vorys next challenges and requests and supoenas etc.
(Again, this is my opinion. OP needs an attorney and Only follow attorney's advice)
Me? I'd think of it this way.
First, even if they discard and 'lose' the acquisition cost of all their remaining Zebra products, they would still be far, far ahead.
Second,
Hopefully they didn't pay that much for them.
And hopefully they had a profitable prior run selling here, to offset the 'loss' if they choose to stop selling them.
Lynn
12-03-2018 07:56 AM - edited 12-03-2018 07:57 AM
@www_inletclouds_com wrote:I just received a letter from Vorys,Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Legal Counsel through fedex over night priority mail with no signature confirmation saying cease and desist of selling of Zebra products.
Do i need to take this letter seriously?
In this case, I'm going to vote Yes. Note that they have gone to the time and expense of obtaining your home address and paying for overnight FedEx delivery.
Am getting these product from auction/ebay and list these used and some open box(new other) and also mention in listing "This is a genuine Zebra Product purchased by me, from a reputable company. Because I am not affiliated in anyway with Zebra Technologies Corporation and its affiliates, including ZIH corp. and did not purchase this item directly from them, any warranties normally offered by Zebra Technologies Corporation and its affiliates, including ZIH corp. for these products will not be valid."
While I know that bit of legalistic text is well-intentioned by you, the trademark trolls view it as a dare, and the fact that you've sold a quantity of Zebra printers puts you way ahead (in their target sights) of a casual seller who's just trying to unload his one used printer.
Given the behavior of this law firm which is presumably acting with the knowledge of Zebra themselves, I would suggest dumping your Zebra printers at your earliest convenience, and I would not recommend buying or selling a Zebra printer in future.
12-03-2018 10:45 AM
@myangelandmyprincess wrote:I'm not sure they are claiming fake. It mentions interference with a contract which more implies working with an authorized dealer to sell on eBay. The interference with a contract would be if the op knows the person they are buying from has a contact to sell with zebra but the op and that person have a deal made with buying and selling on here. If that's the case yes I would stop. If the resource for these is questionable I'd likely stop. I wouldn't respond either as requested though. Along with that if I knew They were legit items and I wasn't interfering with a contract between someone else and zebra I might not care but it's up to the op on whether they want to stop or not.
They touch just about every base in that letter in terms of trademark infringement. Looks like a lot of boilerplate to me. Trademark infringment itself means that the seller is either using Zebra's logos and info to represent himself as Zebra when he is not, or is placing Zebra's logos on product that is not actually Zebra product in order to represent it as Zebra's product.
This is interesting, because if these are aftermarket or grey market printers that have been re-labeled as Zebra printers, it rather implies that Zebra is buying a generic and privately labelling it, which means the device itself can't really be trademarked. Trademarks are only supposed to be applied to original inventions one has actually created themselves. Arguments about quality control and supply chain go out the window if anyone can go buy a pallet of these off of Alibaba and stick their label on it.
Reselling legitimate branded product is not illegal in the United States and is protected by first sale doctrine, and this has been ruled on many, many times over the years. The seller can even directly mention the brand in question(but not use their logo) and that is still completely legal. Although, many places will opt not to do this which why you'll see closeout places advertising "famous brand" sales.
I think the text the seller was using that these are "genuine zebra printers" is what's got him in hot water here. There is no indication that the seller has any contract at all with Zebra, so I don't see how he could be interfering in a contract unless he is knowingly buying from a distributor that has an agreement with Zebra not to sell to unauthorized third parties. Zebra would still have to prove this in court.
I agree, I would absolutely not respond to the fishing expedition in the letter. Any response needs to come from a lawyer who the seller has retained.
These type of scare tactics are incredibly common on a competing site, but are typically sent through e-mail. I suspect the letter is legit based on the company, law firm, and the fact that it was received in snail mail. I would check sender's address to see if it matches the actual law firm in question.
I always have to wonder with the tactics of companies like this .... if they've found someone who is successfully selling their product, why aren't they simply contacting that party and offering to directly sell them product for resale as an authorized vendor? It seems like that would be a lot more productive for all parties involved than going to court.