On
March 28, 2013, Suffolk County officials busted five suspects of an
international counterfeiting ring.[1]
The ring sold fashion knockoff
items of brands such as North Face, Uggs, Coach, Louis Vuiton, Tory Burch,
Michael Kors, Oakley, Kate Spade, Nike, Prada, Tiffany, and other brands stored
in Queens facilities.[2] Every imported item, manufactured in
China, was a counterfeit. All five
suspects have been indicted on conspiracy and trademark counterfeiting charges.[3]
This recent news event is an
example of direct anti-counterfeiting efforts to fight the counterfeit market. The fashion industry is one of many
industries to have fallen prey to counterfeiting, but legislation and action by
the courts and law enforcement have directly impacted the effects and attempts
of market penetration by counterfeiters. This is important because counterfeiting, if expanded to a
large scale, can create hazards and a destructive environment –such as when the
New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority unknowingly bought counterfeit
trains from a manufacturer that ended up falling off the tracks.
Anti-counterfeiting
efforts have strongly focused on third-party liability. Due to legislation, third-party
landlords are now liable for counterfeit goods sold on their property. On real estate terms, third-party
landlords can no longer pretend to not know about or ignore the sale of
counterfeit goods on their property. This legislation aims at pushing landlords to action to
prevent counterfeit markets. Third-party
liability in real estate has been demonstrated by the recent case of Coach
v. Popular Fashions. On March
25, 2013, Coach filed a federal lawsuit in a Nashville District Court against
Popular Fashions, a store in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.[4]
Coach alleged that Popular
Fashions had been selling Coach imitation bags and is demanding $14 million in
damages.[5]
Coach had been aware of the
counterfeit sales since June 2012 and sent investigators and secret service
agents to gather information about the store’s owners and staff.[6]
The investigators made purchases
and verified that the item were counterfeits.[7]
The counterfeit items purchased by
the investigators were used for a training session in identification of
counterfeit items for Nashville law enforcement in July 2012.[8] Investigators continued to make
purchases at the store until December 2012, when the store was served a warrant
and twenty-six counterfeit bags and nineteen counterfeit wallets were found as
a result of a search.[9] Coach has brought eleven claims against
Popular Fashion involving claims from deceptive practice to trademark
infringement.[10] Popular Fashion owners and staff were aware
of the counterfeits being sold on their property and therefore should be held
accordingly liable. However, real
estate is only one of the few markets the counterfeiters have tapped.
One
of the biggest recent problems involving third parties is E-commerce. Due to the rise of the Digital Age after
the millennium, the Internet has made counterfeiting simpler. Sites like eBay and IOffer have been
the prime markets for people selling counterfeit goods, allowing access of
counterfeits from anywhere in the world. Now a consumer no longer needs to go down to Canal Street for
a counterfeit bag. With a few
clicks of the mouse, a consumer can now have a high quality counterfeit bag
delivered to his or her door from China.
Anti-Counterfeiting
efforts have aimed to deal with E-commerce by writing the merchants
cease-and-desist letters. Many
in-house corporations have specific departments dedicated to drafting
cease-and-desist letters, which tend to work efficiently in the removal of the
counterfeit goods from the websites. In fact, due to third-party liability, eBay and IOffer have
teamed up with big fashion corporations and anti-counterfeiting efforts. If notified, eBay and IOffer will remove
counterfeit goods from their sites. Not only are auction sites like eBay and IOffer involved, but
also the payment money processing sites. Third-party sites like Paypal may also be held liable and are
working with auction sites to track and prevent counterfeits.
In
the Tiffany, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.), Tiffany charged eBay of
contributory trademark infringement because eBay had listings of counterfeit
Tiffany jewelry. EBay took down
the specific listings that Tiffany brought claims about but did not stop other
listings from being posted.[11]
The Court held that eBay was not
liable for contributory infringement even if eBay had general knowledge that
counterfeit Tiffany products were sold on its site.[12]
The Court’s rationale was that eBay
did not continue to give its services to those who sold counterfeit Tiffany
jewelry knowing that the merchants sold Tiffany trademark infringement products
and eBay did not turn a blind eye to ignore trademark infringement issues.[13]
The focuses on contributory
infringement involved continued services from third parties to merchants who
sold counterfeits and action done by third parties to stop counterfeit
merchandise from being sold.
Since the Tiffany case, eBay and
other retailers have continued to move forward with anti-counterfeiting
efforts. EBay now has an
anti-counterfeiting warning, guides, and a partnership with the International
Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition. Also,
EBay joined with the Council of Fashion Designers of America in a “YOU CAN’T
FAKE FASHION” campaign to raise awareness against counterfeits to celebrate
original design.[14] “We hope
broader awareness will help fight counterfeits and the harm they cause, and
eBay is proud to partner with the CFDA on the second iteration of this
campaign,” said Alan Marks, eBay’s Senior Vice President of Global
Communications.[15] “Counterfeits not only are illegal, they
also damage brand owners, frustrate shoppers and undermine consumer confidence.
EBay invests substantial resources to help provide millions of consumers a trusted,
confident marketplace experience; this campaign is another example of our
commitment to being a leading industry voice in the fight against counterfeits.”[16]
Amelia Wong
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
Image by: asgw
[2]
Id.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Kubis, Emily, Coach Inc. Sues Murfreesboro Store Over Knockoffs, The
Tennessean, (March 26, 2013) available at:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130326/NEWS03/303250061/1969/NEWS?nclick_check=1.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Kubis, Emily, Coach Inc. Sues Murfreesboro Store Over Knockoffs, The
Tennessean, (March 26, 2013) available at:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130326/NEWS03/303250061/1969/NEWS?nclick_check=1.
[10]
Kubis, Emily, Coach Inc. Sues Murfreesboro Store Over Knockoffs, The
Tennessean, (March 26, 2013) available at:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130326/NEWS03/303250061/1969/NEWS?nclick_check=1.
[11]
LaLonde, Anne Gilson, Supreme Court Denies Cert in Tiffany v. Ebay, Mark
Monitor (2010), available at: https://www.markmonitor.com/mmblog/supreme-court-denies-cert-in-tiffany-v-ebay/.
[12] Tiffany, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010), available at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/copyright-trademarklaw/blogs/graygoodfakegoods/archive/2010/06/30/free-download-opinion-tiffany-inc-v-ebay-inc-600-f-3d-93-2d-cir-n-y-2010.aspx
[13]
LaLonde, Anne Gilson, Supreme Court Denies Cert in Tiffany v. Ebay, Mark
Monitor (2010), available at:
https://www.markmonitor.com/mmblog/supreme-court-denies-cert-in-tiffany-v-ebay/.
[14]
Ebay and Council of Fashion Designers of America Advance Anti-Counterfeiting
Efforts with the Return of “You Can’t Fake Fashion”, Businesswire (2012),
available at: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120208006362/en/eBay-Council-Fashion-Designers-America-Advance-Anti-Counterfeiting.
[15]
Id.
[16] Id.
I think part of raising awareness about counterfeit products should focus on where the money is going. Consumers tend to focus on the product they are purchasing; however, consumers need to be aware of what their money is funding, which is often illicit activities.
ReplyDeleteAlso, regulating the e-retailers would be a better way. it is easier for counterfeits to prevail through Internet than in actual stores. I think this piece is inspiring. Even if costumers are aware of what their money is funding, it would not necessarily deter them from purchasing the counterfeits, due to the price and the so-called "brand name."
DeleteVery interesting, thanks for sharing. I've been doing an internship for a criminal law in Fairbanks AK and I find this all so interesting now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOver Run Aggreements - A Aggreement between the brand and the manfacturer to make product at a discounted price for exchange of production expansion specifically for the manfacturer to sell in or the same markets, outlets, etc..
ReplyDeleteExample: A brand like KM DEMANDS a very low price to produce a 100,000 handbags for .77 cents (thats correct...0.77 cents) The factory makes the deal on the premise they can make a total of 150K and keep 50K for their own sales.....The brand makes the problem for themselves and then enforces counterfiet laws? Who is real scum? The brand or the factory workers, small flea market vendor? Oh wait. I failed to mention the lawyer who gets %38 of any settlement agreement.