- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Luxury brands around the world were no doubt ecstatic over Louis Vuitton’s $63 million win this past Monday in France. A Paris court ordered eBay to pay damages to LVMH (a Paris-based conglomerate owning luxury brands Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Givenchy, among others) for facilitating the sale of counterfeit products. California-based eBay claimed to have spent $20 million annually to prevent counterfeit products from being sold on its web pages, but after discovering that 90% of the Dior and Louis Vuitton brand goods sold on the site were counterfeit, LVMH decided that eBay’s efforts were insufficient.
While the ruling applied French national law, it has far-reaching implications. The case is likely to be studied by luxury goods brands with similar cases pending such as Tiffany’s & Co., which claims to lose $30 billion annually due to counterfeit and unauthorized sales of its products.
eBay asserts that it will appeal the decision, suggesting that LVMH’s real intention is to micromanage product distribution and prices, not combat piracy. It also argues that this decision will end up harming law-abiding consumers.
eBay has a valid point. If online auctioneers and outlets decide that the cost of rooting out the counterfeit products is too high for the return, they may cease auctioning and selling luxury goods altogether. This would lead to fewer sales outlets for law-abiding citizens who wish to sell their used luxury goods, therefore leading to fewer products available for consumers. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground where luxury brands are protected and online auction sites are able to carry all legitimate goods.
– Carrie Frondorf
Recent Blog Posts
- Controlling the Uncontrollable: UK Taking the Driver’s Seat in Driverless Car Technology
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution