@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.
