albertabrightalberta | Volunteer Community Mentor
ShipScript has been an eBay Community volunteer since 2003, specializing in HTML, CSS, Scripts, Photos, Active Content, Technical Solutions, and online Seller Tools.
@witmermotorservice wrote:Anyone else having problems with fraudulent 'brand mis-use' claims from a company called "REDPOINT"?
We have received multiple takedown demands, the most recent for these five listings:
324283112397 - 310960A1 Case New Holland (CNH) Shim Kit
324225501408 - 181274A1 Case New Holland (CNH) Repair Kit
324238398976 - 313557A1 Remanufactured Case New Holland (CNH) Shim Kit
324225523656 - 87743514 Case New Holland (CNH) Pochette Kit
324290956554 - 87455748 Case New Holland (CNH) Kit
...
@witmermotorservice , I noticed that those listings were not taken down by eBay. They have been ended, and are not showing up in the completed-listings search, but they are still available to view on eBay.
I looked at all of them, and I noticed that all of them have non-compliant descriptions, which can't be viewed in the listing itself. You have to click a button to view the description. Like this, which is the first listing:
We don't see this happening very often anymore. Most sellers found and fixed their listings when eBay first banned the use of active links in a listing (links which take the buyer off of eBay). The most common cause of the "Active Content" error (like this), is having a link in the description, but it can be an "invisible" link, because if your listing has a lot of redundant HTML code, then the link might be in a section of code that is not being displayed because of the formatting. When this happens, a listing can be non-compliant, even though there are no visible (or clickable) links in it.
The most common way this happens, is if some of the text in the description is copied from another website. Sometimes, this can bring in an invisible link back to the website where it was copied from, or elsewhere. These invisible links can be detected by bots that crawl the site, looking for intellectual property violations (which is what you got). So, they could be the reason why those listings were flagged.
I suspect this may be the case, because you do still have a CNH listing which is still active and was not targeted, but that one has a visible description, so there isn't any Active Content in it. One thing that the flagged listings all have in common, is that they all have Active Content in the description.
Normally, I would use @shipscript 's active content scanner on her website www.isdntek.com, to screen your listing and find out if there's an illegal link hidden in it, and if so what it is, and where. But unfortunately, I can't access @shipscript 's website right now, because I get a safety warning that it isn't configured correctly ... so I figured if I tagged her, she would probably check this thread out, and could check the listings for you (and maybe fix the website).
@lacemaker3 Not sure what your talking about exactly. There is no active content on these listings. eBay blocks all links (and will not let you show products with links in the description). We also [mostly] don't use html in our listing descriptions and we don't copy content from anyone's websites (except our own). This is the entirety of the listing description on this listing:
If you can explain how this is 'active content' or somehow relates to a "brand mis-use" claim, I'm always willing to learn something new...
Our listings were taken down by eBay and were gone completely - We got the final notices. Apparently the listings are back again, as they now show in our ended listings instead of *not being found anywhere*. We did get two emails from eBay (both dated 10/25/21) that may relate (though we're not sure - does vero@ebay actually undo fraudulent claims?):
"Hello witmermotorservice,
Your appeal has been approved..
Any actions taken on your account have now been removed.
For more information on the policy, please see our previous emails.
We're sorry for any inconvenience this has caused you.
Thanks,
eBay"
It seems to me that unless the OP is under contract with the company and has a contractual agreement that items cannot be resold on ebay, first sale doctrine DOES allow the sale of authentic branded items. And despite some companies' dislike of their items being resold, they don't have a say as long as such items are authentic and made by the company whose name is on them.
VeRO takedowns are appealable but need to be done through the VeRO representative. There should be an email address somewhere (usually near the bottom) of the takedown message.
The violation claims use of "New Holland**" in the title and description and there's no implication that the items aren't authentic so you are allowed to use the brand name in your listings!
If your appeal to the company doesn't work, you might want to read about and/or contact Tabberone and her website.
@witmermotorservice wrote:@lacemaker3 Not sure what your talking about exactly. There is no active content on these listings. eBay blocks all links (and will not let you show products with links in the description). We also [mostly] don't use html in our listing descriptions and we don't copy content from anyone's websites (except our own). This is the entirety of the listing description on this listing:
...
@witmermotorservice , the button to click on those listings, "See full item description" means that there is something in the descriptions that eBay doesn't like. This is how eBay blocks descriptions with links that are not allowed.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/324283112397
It's usually Active Content, but in this case, apparently that's not it. I couldn't find any Active Content in those listings using @shipscript 's Active Content tool (her website is back up now.
https://www.isdntek.com/ebaytools/ActiveContentSandbox.htm
I thought that the issue might be related to that "See full item description" button, since it was on all the listings that were flagged, but not on the one that was still active. @shipscript is the expert on HTML, maybe she would be able to take a look at your listings and spot something that might have caused it. I've tagged her, so hopefully she will visit this thread.
If you have been given permission to relist them, then I guess you're good to go. I would recommend that you redo the descriptions from scratch, to get rid of the button, because a lot of buyers don't like having to do an extra click to read the description. It could affect your sales.
Sorry for the delay (server problems).
I looked at the listing using different URL settings and could not find anything wrong with the HTML. However, I can see eBay's command in the code indicating a secure code problem with the one-click-away instruction, which usually runs the code through a script before it is displayed. I can only surmise that there was something wrong with the original text, which eBay stripped, and I am unable to get back to the original (which I can usually do by modifying the URL parameters). Or, possibly, that the listing was made a couple of years ago when eBay had a lot of problems erroneously flagging valid descriptions as one click away.
To resolve that problem, you would need to edit the description (add a space or something) so that eBay will again run it through their description filter and not flag it for one-click.
@witmermotorservice wrote:
@lacemaker3 Still no permission to relist... vero@ebay hasn't responded to us yet.
@albertabrightalberta We do not have any contracts/agreements with "CNH Industrial" or "New Holland" or any other vehicle/tractor manufacturer.
When there's a VeRO (aka DMCA) takedown request from a rights holder, you are given contact information to get clarification or dispute their claim of infringement. You appeal directly to them, NOT to ebay. Your appeal is called "filing a counter notice."
(I've been on both sides of this and have won appeals for illegal takedowns as well as had listings removed when they made unauthorized use of my intellectual property.)
After filing the counter notice, the rights holder (the one who filed the claim and who has claimed infringement) has 10 days to respond. If they don't respond, the site (i.e., ebay in this case) has to reinstate the listing.
https://www.upcounsel.com/dmca-claim
Some of the following may not apply. I've never taken anyone to court to get my listings reinstated. In my cases, all counter notices were done through phone and email after submitting the forms. And in cases where I filed VeRO, no one ever disputed my claims because it was obvious they'd used my images so I never had to respond to a counternotice.
Responding to a DMCA Takedown Notice of Your Content
If your hosting service or other ISP receives a DMCA Takedown notice regarding your content, it usually responds by removing the material in question. It will do this without judging whether your content is actually infringing or not.
The DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures offer you protection from wrongful claims of copyright infringement. The DMCA requires service providers to tell you immediately when they remove any of your content due to a takedown notice. You then have the right to submit a counter-notice asking that the material be put back up.
There is no time limit for submitting a counter-notice, but you should reply as soon as you can. If you send a counter-notice, your service provider must then replace the disputed content unless the first complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of sending your counter-notice.
If you are not a U.S. resident, you need to consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S. court in your counter-notice. If you never go to the U.S. and you don't have any assets there, then there may not be a case because a plaintiff would not be able to enforce a judgment against you in the U.S.
If you can't show sufficient assets in the U.S., a plaintiff may be able to convince a court in your country to enforce a foreign judgment. These proceedings don't usually give you an opportunity to make your case. If you are a non-U.S. resident and you send a counter-notice, you give up a powerful argument that you would otherwise have, so it is not recommended for non-U.S. residents to send a counter-notice unless they are willing to fight a copyright infringement claim in the U.S.
Before sending a counter-notice, be sure to carefully consider whether you are infringing on the other party's copyright. The counter-notice requires that you have a good faith belief that your material was wrongly taken down. If you send a counter-notice and the complaining party has a good case for infringement, you could trigger a lawsuit.
If you are not ready to stand up to a lawsuit for the use of the copyright owner's work, you should not send a counter-notice.
To be effective, your counter-notice needs to have:
- Your physical or electronic signature
- Your name, address, and contact number
- An identification of the alleged infringed material and its location before it was taken down
- A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the material was taken down by mistake or misidentification
- Your consent to the jurisdiction of a federal court in the district that you live in (if you are in the U.S.), or to the jurisdiction of a federal court where your service provider is located (if you are not in the U.S.)
- Your consent to accept service of process from the person who submitted the first DMCA takedown notice
A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works stay offline for 10 business days, after which, if no more action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.
The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.
AFAIK, it's not VeRO to whom you file the counternotice.
