Comments on: A bottle of perfume could end cross border EU trade

By: Roget

Roget — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:47:17 +0000

Would be interesting to see pages of legal terms with a bottle of perfume in the future.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:43:01 +0000

Do you mean that you would like to see eBay continue as an “anything goes” market place without eBay having to take any responsibility for what is available on the site or how it is sold – That is the elephant in the room .

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:40:51 +0000

I think “visable” is the key word here. I’m sure they’d be happy enough with items being sold on market stalls or clearance shops, just not on the net where it’s so publically visable.

By: JP

JP — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:27:33 +0000

I have told my wife that her LV bag I was gonna buy her is now off the wishlist… seriously though, its about time that The French stop screwing up what is a very good and profitable EU trading arrangement.

eBay’s 750,000 signatures show the strength of feeling. I have confidence in the eBay management in UK and EU to really fight this and achieve the result we all desire.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:27:28 +0000

I understand that but I think that you are being rather an alarmist here . Do you honestly think that the EU is going to bring in broad legislation prohibiting the re-sale of second hand goods? Is it now illegal to sell any second hand LVMH product in France?

If there had never been fake & unauthorized sales on eBay then there would never have been a case or am I missing something?

By: Chris Dawson

Chris Dawson — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:30:56 +0000

The problem is Jimbo that while you may think it “unlikely that we are going to be facing a restriction on selling second hand goods in the UK” we’re actually in the EU. EU regulations already control commerce in the UK, EU legal cases shape EU law and EU companies are lobbying to shape EU Regulations which will determine the shape of online business for the next 10 years.

One precedent in France could quite well influence a host of other companies to act likewise and not just on luxury brands – sellers of everyday products could quite well (and already do!) face similar selective distribution restrictions.

By: Sue Bailey

Sue Bailey — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:37:32 +0000

That’s what I’m saying – they think they have a case over and above the “fake items” argument.
And they’re still selling off their overstocks and ends of line to clearance outlets. They want the best of both worlds: the cash, AND no visible “clearance” market.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:02:39 +0000

I personally have no issue with brands controlling how their goods reach the market. If Tiffany only want to sell there goods through there own shops and concessions so be it. If I want to buy Tiffany I know what I need to do & I can purchase the product with 100% confidence.

I think it’s very unlikely that we are going to be facing a restriction on selling second hand goods in the UK but I guess it is possible that some channels will be closed. I’m also of the opinion that some products are not suitable for resale outside of there original context eg date sensitive items when date is not shown at point of sale, crash helmets.

What’s the deal on reselling Crisps from one of those Jumbo bags?

By: Chris Dawson

Chris Dawson — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:01:11 +0000

Jimbo the thing is some brands don’t want the goods resold regardless of whether that’s as “new”, “used” or “liquidated”. LVMH want to ensure that French buyers pop into an over priced Parisian boutique to pay top dollar for their scent.

It’s a slippery slope and where one brand goes others will follow and the restrictive practices will become more widely spread. The EU was supposed to be a Single Market but the regulations were written 10 years ago before Internet trading really took off.

Interestingly EU “regulations” aren’t like laws – they expire every 10 years and need to be renewed which is why the whole selective distribution argument has raised its head so much of late – the rules are being re-written and both retailers, consumers and brand owners are fighting for their own interests.

North – on computer products it’s software that’s normally at issue, and especially OEM software. But to be fair that’s because it’s generally a “license to use” and not a physical product that’s sold.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:55:08 +0000

Chris then the goods should be sold as “liquidated stock” because that’s what it is.

Sue that a brand owner wants to protect it’s brand and investment seems totally reasonable. If eBay hadn’t been full of fakes, goods intended for an alternative market, items being sold when the shelf life had expired and goods generally being miss-sold, would the brand owners have a case?