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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

You have to ask, if the brand owner didn’t retain title in those goods when they were first sold to the now defunct retailer, why they should now be able to determine where and how they are resold by the current owner.

If someone gives me a gift for me at Christmas I am not that bothered about it’s status but …. I would say that it has been bought from a retailer, as brand new, for me, as a gift.

PS Don’t like the idea of receiving someone elses unwanted gifts though

L’Oréal tried this with Lancôme products – L’Oréal hand selected 15 items to produce as evidence in court and they all turned out to be genuine products! Their argument too was that they wanted “to protect the quality of the distribution of its products via its selective distribution networks and service to consumers”.

I dunno about the “brand new” thing – Does that mean all the Christmas presents I’ve received over the years were 2nd hand because someone else bought them and then gave them to me as gifts?

The question is do these companies effectively lease their products retaining rights when the “owner” no longer requires them or are they sold and once sold the new owner has rights to dispose of as they see fit?

But I thought this had originally all come about and the original basis was that there were a large number of fakes being sold and also that products were being sold out of context.

PS: Does a product remain “brand new” if it has already been sold through a retail outlet?

If you live in France and want to sell an unwanted unopened brand new bottle of perfume you’re simply not allowed to sell what you’ve bought and paid for in a retail outlet – that can’t be right!

Was the ban in anyway related to the sale of fake products on eBay?

When people speak to us looking to list their second-hand goods on eBay they are amazed that any restrictions could be in place at all on their right to sell genuine goods. In their minds they bought them and they are theirs to dispose of as they see fit.

Everyone is aware of the issue of fakes and we weed out any that are consigned to us and stop working for sellers who ask us to sell them. Before running Stuff U Sell, my previous job was serving Brand and IP Rights Owners and their lawyers with Online IP protection services. I have reasonable knowledge of the law and take compliance of this area extremely seriously but even I’m amazed at the complexity of the rules now, and the variation in application within the EU, let alone other countries.

There is always a balance to be struck between brand owners who wish to charge more for their exclusive products and consumers who pay for them.

The European Court should clarify in law where this lies and the national courts harmonise their views around it. Then let the voters decide whether they need a change in the law.

At the moment consumers and small businesses risk getting damaged (law suits, VeRO strikes, eBay account suspensions) as a result of a lack of clarity in how far the Brand Owners are allowed to go in protecting their IP rights.

This issue is much bigger than a bottle of scent.