cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks

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

Message 1 of 60
latest reply
59 REPLIES 59

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@emerald40 wrote:

Do you realize how expensive it can be to retain a lawyer.  And fighting a copyright can be a long and expensive process.  Who here has that kind of deep pockets.  And you may still lose.

 

Offering that type of advice is just not practical for many who sell here.


The seller already has the attention of Vorys, they may well need one. Most initial consultations are free. I am advising that the poster consult with a lawyer who will tell him whether there is any credibility to the claims outlined in the letter or not. From there, the seller can decide whether or not they wish to retain one. 

Message 31 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@valuestore wrote:

Seems fishy, zebra is a huge company, they could simply go through ebays vero program, proper channels.


I suspect they did not go through VERO because VERO doesn't cover what they are trying to do.  VERO is basically for counterfeit items and unauthorized trademark use.  This is neither of those things.

 

Looks to me like Zebra has hired this law firm to intimidate small sellers into not selling their products.   But if the OP obtained Zebra items legitimately, Zebra can get mad all they want, but what the OP is doing is not illegal.  The "first sale doctrine" applies here, and limits Zebra's copyright.

 

If I were the OP, I would have my attorney send them a cease and desist letter pointing out to them that their claim that my sales are "unlawful" is not true, and that continued pursuit of this matter against me will constitute harassment and may subject them to legal claims.

 

My guess is the law firm knows they are wrong, and by standing up to them, they will back down.

 

 

Message 32 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@18704d wrote:

 

"You DO NOT need a lawyer!

 ...

As stated by another poster, if they had a legit claim they would follow the proper procedures and file infringement notices under the DMCA."

-----------

 

Dangerous advice.

 

Google shows this firm DOES and IS actully suing many many such resellers.

 

Deciding not to file under the DMCA does Not stop or restrict their right and ability to deal with you with a C&D through their attorneys.

 

OP's listings (photographs) shows they also have a private, off-eBay website selling many of these items.  OP is no 'small fish' in their eyes.

 

Zebra has the right to pursue the OP this way.

This is not 'fishing' as suggested earlier.

They received a snail mail fedex C&D with delivery conf.

Next step is a potential formal Summons to federal court.

(that means a federal complaint has been filed)

 

Lynn

 

 


Its absolutely fishing. If they had the evidence of the source of the seller's items, they wouldn't be asking him to potentially incriminate himself or his source by divulging that information. 

 

We don't know all of the details of the seller's relationship to his supplier, so its hard to make anything other than generalizations. 

 

The next step is not a summons for a federal court. The next step is for the firm to file a civil suit in the seller's jurisdiction and then to make service to the seller of the notification that he is being sued. 

 

Most of such cases never make it to court and I agree with what is posted that the firm will likely offer a settlement to stay out of court. 

Message 33 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

@equid0x wrote:

@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. 


They aren’t calling it trademark infringement because they believe they are counterfeit. They are saying it’s trademark infringement because since it won’t come with the warranty it falls under “not genuine”. They aren’t claiming it’s literally a fake though.  


Okay, I'm not aware that there is any legal distinction between "counterfeit" and "not geniuine". It is not illegal to resell an item that was not obtained from an authorized distributor, nor is it illegal to resell an item that does not carry a warranty. 

Message 34 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@emerald40 wrote:

I posted a link on that other thread you and I were discussing

 

A manufacturer’s product is not considered truly “genuine” unless it is manufactured and distributed under quality controls established by the manufacturer.[5]  Thus, courts have held that trademark holders have the right to control the quality of their distribution.  In other words, unauthorized resellers who do not follow a manufacturer’s quality controls can be liable for trademark infringement.[6]

 

Copyright owners have more rights than just an item being legitimate.  Part of this company is their warranty.  Non authorized sellers cannot provide this warranty.  So it is not the same quality control. 
An exception to first sale doctrine.


Please provide a link to any case that backs this claim on a reputable site such as, say, lexis-nexis. 

 

I don't see how a reseller can fail to follow a manufacturer's quality controls, since they are not manufacturing a product. I believe the text your a referencing specifically pertains to the case where a private labeler obtains and resells the same product for an OEM, and then slaps someone's else's brand on the item, claiming it is the real deal. 

Message 35 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@emerald40 wrote:

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

@emerald40 wrote:

More and more companies have lawyers on their payrol and who department dedicated to this.

 

I hope it does set a precedent that a seller cannot take someone's copyrighted product and do whatever he wants.  If he is going to sell then he needs to be familiar with that company's rules and not just blow them off.


This we will have to disagree on. If I buy something I should have right to sell it I paid for that right when I bought the item 


So you feel if you bought these from some guy on the street, then you have the right to sell it even if he got them off the back of the truck.  Even if part of this company is the ability to have a warranty and that is not available from this guy,


This depends on whether or not the seller is representing themselves as an authorized distributor of that company, and whether or not they are claiming to provide said company's warranty when they do not have the right to do so. 

Message 36 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@equid0x wrote:

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

@equid0x wrote:

@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. 


They aren’t calling it trademark infringement because they believe they are counterfeit. They are saying it’s trademark infringement because since it won’t come with the warranty it falls under “not genuine”. They aren’t claiming it’s literally a fake though.  


Okay, I'm not aware that there is any legal distinction between "counterfeit" and "not geniuine". It is not illegal to resell an item that was not obtained from an authorized distributor, nor is it illegal to resell an item that does not carry a warranty. 


the letter is trying to make it a distinction. 

“Birth certificates show that you were born. Death certificates show that you died. Photographs show that you have lived.” -Unknown
Message 37 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@equid0x wrote:

@emerald40 wrote:

I posted a link on that other thread you and I were discussing

 

A manufacturer’s product is not considered truly “genuine” unless it is manufactured and distributed under quality controls established by the manufacturer.[5]  Thus, courts have held that trademark holders have the right to control the quality of their distribution.  In other words, unauthorized resellers who do not follow a manufacturer’s quality controls can be liable for trademark infringement.[6]

 

Copyright owners have more rights than just an item being legitimate.  Part of this company is their warranty.  Non authorized sellers cannot provide this warranty.  So it is not the same quality control. 
An exception to first sale doctrine.


Please provide a link to any case that backs this claim on a reputable site such as, say, lexis-nexis. 

 

I don't see how a reseller can fail to follow a manufacturer's quality controls, since they are not manufacturing a product. I believe the text your a referencing specifically pertains to the case where a private labeler obtains and resells the same product for an OEM, and then slaps someone's else's brand on the item, claiming it is the real deal. 


Youre correct that is what it is for.  This company is trying to make it for even a legit item they manufactured because the wording isn't specific basically trying to set a legal precedent with a loophole in the wording.  

“Birth certificates show that you were born. Death certificates show that you died. Photographs show that you have lived.” -Unknown
Message 38 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@slippinjimmy wrote:

This is a complete crock!

 

DO NOT respond to the letter!

 

You DO NOT need a lawyer!

 

Never mind that they are using the same boiler plate notices I've seen for DECADES and advertise themselves it only take a few minutes of reasearch to realize this firm is nothing more than a copyright troll. They sign up companies and claim to "protect" them and assist in controlling their distribution channels.

 

Every time they sent a notice they get paid, every time they get a response they get paid. Their next step may very well be some form of extortion where they will for a "modest" settlement go away and cease their threats....it's extortion and it's rampant out there. Hundreds of law firms worldwide base their entire business on this type of activity.

 

As stated by another poster, if they had a legit claim they would follow the proper procedures and file infringement notices under the DMCA. They have no such legit claim so they go the extortion and fear route instead. They want you to reveal your source so that can track back to the actual authorized reseller who is leaking inventory to third-party seller.

 

Zebra make nice printers but they are ridiculously overpriced and they want to keep it that way, the only way to do that is to put the screws to third-party sellers and threaten authorized dealers if they allow inventory leakage to sellers they can't control.

 

It's all about controlling the market and maintaining high prices, legally they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

If they had a legit claim they could have eBay remove your listing in 5 minutes. Sometimes people will say that they are just being nice and giving you a heads up and allowing you to avoid consequences, it's a complete crock, all they are interested in is collecting fees from the companies they represent.

 


Wow!  From this chair, this appears to be incredibly irresponsible advice.  I know dudes who work and have worked at VSS&P and I can assure you the law firm is no troll and certainly not one who gets a majority of their revenues from these kinds of cases.  Sure they get paid for their time - what else is an attorney, accountant or MD selling but their "time" and experience?

 

But calling them names and making accusations and impinging on a law firms reputation sure appears to fall under the "don't poke the bear "doctrine.   While the 'net is about freedom, there still is the legal concept of libel,  a written defamation.     

 

I'm just saying.

Message 39 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks

The other thing to consider is that companies, if they wish to retain patents, copyright and other legal protections is that they MUST defend them.   Ignore the missuses of your "protections" for years and then decide one day you want to stop it, the courts might not side with you because you haven't been vigilant and only randomly & capricious enforced those protections.

 

Also, it is possible Zebra has in its sight a BIG target, but as part of going after that target has to show that is is evenly enforcing their legal rights and thus even the small sellers have to get attention.

 

 

Message 40 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks


@equid0x wrote:

@emerald40 wrote:

Do you realize how expensive it can be to retain a lawyer.  And fighting a copyright can be a long and expensive process.  Who here has that kind of deep pockets.  And you may still lose.

 

Offering that type of advice is just not practical for many who sell here.


The seller already has the attention of Vorys, they may well need one. Most initial consultations are free. I am advising that the poster consult with a lawyer who will tell him whether there is any credibility to the claims outlined in the letter or not. From there, the seller can decide whether or not they wish to retain one. 


Good advice!  Often there are ways to get initial advice for not very much money.  Some law schools have free legal clinics and one could avail themselves of that service.  

 

Also, the local Bar Association may have a referral service for an initial consultation for a modest fee.  I once used my State's Bar to refer me to a lawyer who listened to me for 45- minutes and dispensed advice all for the outrageous price of $25!

 

 

Message 41 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks

Vorys is a Trademark Bully. Where are you getting the printers as this is the main concern? You have no legal obligation to respond to them or talk to them or any other lawfirm or attorney. The letters, which generally constitute demands, threats and extortion attempts that they plan to sue you if you don’t comply is a fishing expedition and bullying tactic. Threatening to sue someone also constitutes extortion and is a crime. Just remember, the only time you ever have to answer to anything is when you have been properly served with a lawsuit or are under oath. If the printers are legit and you buy them new thru arbitrage or a distributor or used from someone then the “right of first sell doctrine” protects you. Your best bet is to report the attorney or attorneys on the letter(s) to the Ohio Bar Association by filing a Grievance. Also report the law firm and Zebra to the media and press as a “trademark bully”. All the above is stated under the assumption you are not selling counterfeit Zebra products.

Message 42 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks

Some large law firms in the United States are targeting Amazon sellers. These firms assert baseless claims of trademark infringement. These law firms claim that Amazon sellers are not “authorized” by brands to sell the brand’s products. These law firms claim that unauthorized sales of their products amount to trademark infringement. Amazon’s sellers need to know how to address these baseless claims to protect their sellers’ accounts.

Trademark Basics for Amazon Sellers

A trademark is typically a name, symbol, figure, letter, word, or mark used by a manufacturer. The trademark identifies the source of the goods. The trademark instantly relays to the consumer the quality of the product.

Amazon sellers need to know that trademark infringement exists when the use of a trademark is likely to cause “consumer confusion” as to the source of the goods. Think about a pair of sneakers; if a new manufacturer decided to use the NIKE “Swoosh” on their shoes, there would be a high likelihood that consumers would be confused as to who manufactured those shoes. In this scenario, the new manufacturer could be held liable for trademark infringement.

The First Sale Doctrine for Amazon Sellers

The First Sale Doctrine is a very important part of United States intellectual property law that Amazon sellers must be aware of. The First Sale Doctrine provides Amazon sellers the right to buy and then resell practically anything they want. There are certain exceptions.

Amazon sellers need to know that under the First Sale Doctrine an Amazon seller that legally purchases a product has a right to sell that product in an unchanged state. If the Amazon sellers buys and resells the product in an unchanged state, there is likely no intellectual property right infringement.

Amazon sellers who do no more than simply source authentic products and resell them on listings that perfectly match those products, are likely not violating anyone’s rights. Amazon sellers who buy and sell genuine products are likely not violating Amazon rights owner policies.

Material Differences

A material difference in a product means that it is not offered in the exact condition as when offered by a manufacturer. If it can be proved that an Amazon Seller is offering a product that contains some sort of material difference from the manufacturer’s condition, the First Sale Doctrine does not apply and the seller can be held liable for any infringement.

The “New Wave” of Intellectual Property Complaints Against Amazon Sellers

Recently, some law firms in the U.S. have been contacting Amazon sellers and making allegations of intellectual property infringement. These messages typically contain a five-page attachment outlining in great detail how our client’s “unauthorized sale” of X Brand’s products amounts to trademark infringement.

The letters go on to cite various doctrines of law and attempt to intimidate Amazon sellers clients into stopping their sale of certain brands. The letters include the threat of being sued.

This wave of intellectual property complaints against Amazon sellers seem to be no more than an attempt by brands and large law firms to deceive sellers into thinking they are doing something wrong. Worse, the law firms issuing these letters are threatening Amazon sellers who are doing nothing wrong. It seems that lawyers are being used to stop competition by Amazon sellers.

False Claims of Material Differences Unauthorized Seller – Lack of Quality Controls

The first claim we typically see in these letters is something along the lines of “your use of our trademark is likely to cause confusion to consumers because it falsely suggests the products you sell are delivered with all the same benefits, characteristics, and quality controls as the products sold by authorized resellers.” However, more often than not, the letter continues to state that the quality controls not found in our clients’ product offerings are nothing more than a requirement that authorized sellers provide personal consultation services to end-user customers. This is not a material difference, and federal case law agrees.

According to Standard Process v. Banks, it is inherent that certain services, such as an in-person consultation do not come with a product purchased via an e-commerce platform.1

Therefore, there is no damage to any goodwill or reputation of a brand that has not authorized an Amazon Seller to sell their product. Remember though, your products must be authentic, and must otherwise exactly match manufacturer’s condition.

Unauthorized Seller – Warranty Does Not Apply

The next type of claim Amazon sellers face are that the products are different because of warranty issues. This claim can be baseless for many reasons depending on the situation. For example, for most products sold on the Amazon platform, a warranty will not require a repair to be made to the product. Almost always, issues are resolved by providing customers with refunds or replacement products. As such, if an Amazon seller offers the same, the warranty is still in effect. In fact, the A to Z guarantee provided by Amazon essentially requires sellers to adhere to this standard.

Unauthorized Seller – Tortious Interference with Contract

The final type of this “new wave” of complaints involves claims of tortious interference with contract. Essentially, allegations state that our Amazon seller clients are illegally interfering with a brand’s contracts with their authorized resellers because these resellers are prohibited from selling their products to Amazon Sellers. However, although authorized distributors may have the exclusive rights and restrictions to sell a certain type of product, our clients are not a party to any of these agreements between the brand and its distributors. Further, our clients are acting for their own legitimate economic self-interest, and no to induce any distributors to breach their agreements with a brand. Thus, no tortious interference exists, and the Amazon platform does not enforce “Exclusive or Selective Distribution.”2

How Can the Team at Amazon Sellers Lawyer Help?

Many of the large corporate law firms which issue the complaints use the same “form” letters for all their clients and our team has likely read them hundreds of times at this point. These letters often contain mistakes about the products they represent, and more often than not are entirely baseless.

At Rosenbaum Famularo, P.C., the law firm behind AmazonSellersLawyer.com, we handle Seller issues on an individual basis. If an Amazon Seller contacts our office and has received one of these baseless intellectual property allegation “form” letters, our team is here to help.

Our focus is on making sure that these letters do not turn into formal reports of infringement to Amazon and to amicably resolve any issues with the complainants to avoid an account suspension. We perform a full analysis of your product offerings to ensure that you are not infringing any intellectual property rights. We contact the complainants with a strong, but respectful tone explaining the law and why infringement does not exist.

Conclusion

Amazon sellers that receive letters from law firms alleging an intellectual property right violation should not be intimidated. Often the allegations are baseless. Often the brand’s law seems to be attempting to use the law as a scare tactic.

Message 43 of 60
latest reply

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks

Vorys - Cease and Desist - Regarding Unauthorized Sales of products Bearing the Zebra Trademarks