What is VeRO and why was my listing removed because of it?

[sanclementelocals]

I believe the rights owner is wrongly and intentionally claiming items are counterfeit, when they know full well they are not.  I have attempted to resolve this by emailing both the owner and ebay VeRO staff member and as of yet have no resolution. Does anyone have insight they can provide on this subject?

[edwarrojan_0]

Yep it’s happened to me a couple times. It’s **bleep**. I’m done with eBay.

[equid0x]

---

@sanclementelocals wrote:

Here is their response to my counter-notice(at least I think  I was sending a counter -notice).

Hello,

Thank you for contacting eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program about the removal of your listings. My name is Amber  and I am happy to give you some context on why your listings were removed, and what your options are going forward.

Your items were removed because Exclusive Management, Inc sent us a legal notice that they have determined your items are counterfeits that infringe their trademark. We appreciate that you did not intend to list counterfeit goods, and believe that the items you have listed are authorized or authentic, but when we receive a report that appears credible from a verified rights owner on a legal notice, we have to remove the alleged infringement from the site. Since eBay does not have expertise in Exclusive Management, Inc's goods, we have to defer to their expertise on their products, and recommend that you contact the rights owner directly to appeal this removal. We are not able to overturn your items' removal without a retraction from Exclusive Management, Inc. As they have indicated that the actual items infringe their trademark, we strongly recommend that you do not realist the items without us receiving a retraction from Exclusive Management, Inc.

The rights owner is objecting to the item sold, not content within the listing.  The statement below only applies to the way the item was described, such as copying the image, text and making reference to a brand name when it is not the actual brand name item:

"If your listing was removed due to the way it was described (in image or text), you can edit your listing to remove the content in question and realist."

While most VeRO participants are willing to respond to an email, they are not required to address your concerns and we have no way of forcing them to answer you. We hope that this matter can soon be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to you both.

Thank you again for reaching out to us about the removal of your listings. We appreciate the contributions that you make to the eBay community and the business you bring to the site.

Sincerely,

Amber B.

eBay VeR0 Team

---

First sale doctrine applies so long as you are not reselling expired product and you do not claim to be the trademark holder or one of its representatives. 

[equid0x]

---

@albertabrightalberta wrote:

---

@a*river*runs*through*it wrote:

---

From that link: Section  8.2:  We only supply Products (including any free samples provided with your order) for domestic and private use. You agree not to use the Products for any commercial, business or re-sale purposes,

Not sure if that would apply if you bought it from another retailer.

---

The part in red only applies to companies who contract with the manufacturer/rights owner. It doesn't apply to a customer who purchased from an authorized distributor. 

First sale doctrine gives legitimate buyers who purchased from an authorized distributor the right to resell items they purchased. 

As an example, Uggs supplies online websites who contract with them to sell Uggs on their own company website. But that company is not allowed to take it upon themselves and also sell on ebay.

However, if I go buy Uggs from one of their authorized resellers, I am allowed to resell those Uggs per first sale doctrine. I don't have any agreement with Uggs/Deckers and aren't bound by their contract.

-------------------------

However the above is moot because according to the OP's information from the response received, the issue isn't unauthorized sale but rather because the company believes that the item is counterfeit. 

So in that case, the OP needs to (somehow) prove to the company that the item is authentic. 

---

I agree with you with the exception that the seller does not have any legal responsibility to purchase from an authorized seller, nor do they need to provide a receipt. 

Any request to provide such info should be firmly declined. 

The seller has zero obligation to prove to any 3rd party that their stock is legit. To the contrary, the 3rd party must prove that the the sellers' stock is illegitimate. 

[equid0x]

---

@sanclementelocals wrote:

Ebay response to question asking if statement from Amber was accurate.  After I sent this message through Ebay page I sent a request to file a counter notice by email. I'm not sure if their response applies to both the message and the email request to file counter notice.

Hello,

Thank you for contacting the eBay VeRO (Verified Rights Owner) Program. 

Unfortunately, your items were removed based on TRADEMARK  rights. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Counter Notice process only covers items that are removed based upon Copyright rights.  At this time, we urge you to continue to attempt to resolve this matter directly with the rights owner.

We hope that this matter can soon be resolved in a way that is satisfactory to you both. If you have any other questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to write again.

Thank you for your concern in helping to keep eBay a safe and reputable forum in which to conduct business. We appreciate you for choosing eBay.

Kind Regards,
Declan P.
ebay VeRO Team

[THREAD ID: 1-2HV3M1MA]

---

Trademarks & copyright don't apply to resale unless the seller is using the maker's logo or trademarked whatever in their listing or copying listing content that would not qualify as "publicly available" or "specifications". 

[equid0x]

---

@randomjenny wrote:

Dermalactives also came after me and said my item was counterfeit.  This caused my eBay store to get a 7 day suspension.  I filed a Counter Notice which I would encourage you to do to.  

---

If you had significant loss you should file suit against them and recover your losses. IMHO anyways. 

[monster-deals]

The VERO program is a one sided whack-a-mole designed to randomly punish small sellers that cannot defend themselves to keep large corporations from suing ebay and costing them money.

Take your lumps and move on.

[zamo-zuan]

I just want to mention that there's severe issues with the VeRO system that I have reported.

I was told that "Fair Warning" notices for VeRO (the ones saying that you must update the listing before it is taken down) should NOT be giving any penalty, and you should only be receiving a VeRO penalty if you have a takedown.

I reported the issue where we only had VeRO fair warnings, and they DID incur a penalty.

VeRO team said this should not happen. But it was confirmed on the MSO Sellers Health report that stated we had VeRO violations at this time.

I confirmed with the VeRO team that we had NEVER had a VeRO takedown.

Please be careful. It seems this "glitch" was never fixed and is still happening. 

[mam98031]

I feel your pain.  Over the years I've done battle a handful of times in the effort to get a Vero issue resolved.  Each time it was a huge waste of my time because they just don't care.  At least that has been my experience.