Buying and Selling on eBay: Tips, Tricks, Problems & Questions

[Fueco]

He's asking for the outseam measurement.

I believe the correct reply is, "But I ordered a large pepperoni pizza and you delivered one with mushrooms."

Some shorts manufactures list the outseam measurement (Patagonia does it their board shorts). This guy seems confused about what 34x34 means. I’d either educate him and move on or just block him, depending on whether I thought he was being intentionally obtuse or not.

 

[Van Veen]

Patagonia is suing an Amazon third-party reseller for “using several tactics to portray [her shop] as an authorized Patagonia dealer to consumers” and for not selling through “an approved retail site operated by the retailer in accordance with Patagonia’s policies.” Apparently she is also price-gouging. Patagonia also alleges by purchasing so much inventory she is "causing authorized Patagonia dealers to run afoul of their contractual duty to refrain from 'selling to any reseller.'"

The alleged “material differences” that exist between the sale of Patagonia products by the company, itself, and its authorized dealers, and those sold by third-parties on Amazon are worthy of attention. It is well-established that the First Sale Doctrine enables the resale of trademark-bearing items by parties other than the trademark holder after the trademark holder initially releases those products into the market. However, the protection from claims of trademark infringement (among other things) that is provided by this doctrine is limited in certain cases, making it so that the subsequent sale runs afoul of the law. Such a case arises when "material differences" exist between the product(s) initially sold by a trademark-holding brand and the product(s) being “re-sold.”​

​

That is precisely what is going on here, per Patagonia. The products/services that McHugh is offering up by way of her Amazon shop differ from these being sold by Patagonia in a number of ways, including the difference in price for the new-with-tags products, and the warranty terms provided by McHugh/Amazon, which are “inconsistent with the actual warranty from Patagonia available on genuine goods.”​

It will be interesting to see the result, as it could affect anyone buying up new inventory at retail with the intention of flipping.

 

[Fueco]

Patagonia is suing an Amazon third-party reseller for “using several tactics to portray [her shop] as an authorized Patagonia dealer to consumers” and for not selling through “an approved retail site operated by the retailer in accordance with Patagonia’s policies.” Apparently she is also price-gouging. Patagonia also alleges by purchasing so much inventory she is "causing authorized Patagonia dealers to run afoul of their contractual duty to refrain from 'selling to any reseller.'"

The alleged “material differences” that exist between the sale of Patagonia products by the company, itself, and its authorized dealers, and those sold by third-parties on Amazon are worthy of attention. It is well-established that the First Sale Doctrine enables the resale of trademark-bearing items by parties other than the trademark holder after the trademark holder initially releases those products into the market. However, the protection from claims of trademark infringement (among other things) that is provided by this doctrine is limited in certain cases, making it so that the subsequent sale runs afoul of the law. Such a case arises when "material differences" exist between the product(s) initially sold by a trademark-holding brand and the product(s) being “re-sold.”​

​

That is precisely what is going on here, per Patagonia. The products/services that McHugh is offering up by way of her Amazon shop differ from these being sold by Patagonia in a number of ways, including the difference in price for the new-with-tags products, and the warranty terms provided by McHugh/Amazon, which are “inconsistent with the actual warranty from Patagonia available on genuine goods.”​

It will be interesting to see the result, as it could affect anyone buying up new inventory at retail with the intention of flipping.

That seller is using Patagonia’s own imaging in her listings. That’s always been illegal when it comes to selling if you’re not an authorized retailer.

Patagonia has always been okay with folks reselling used stuff. It will be interesting to see where this leads. I really can’t see this leading to not being able to resell things purchased through retail outlets.

 

[drlivingston]

That seller is using Patagonia’s own imaging in her listings. That’s always been illegal when it comes to selling if you’re not an authorized retailer.

Patagonia has always been okay with folks reselling used stuff. It will be interesting to see where this leads. I really can’t see this leading to not being able to resell things purchased through retail outlets.

Does that rule apply to all companies? I see lots of people using images borrowed from Sierra Trading Post.

 

[Fueco]

Does that rule apply to all companies? I see lots of people using images borrowed from Sierra Trading Post.

All photography is copyrighted unless specifically listed as free for use (Creative Commons and such sites).

If someone is using someone else’s photos without permission, and using Patagonia’s logo in their listings (which appears to be part of Patagonia’s complaint), they are in clear violation of copyright law.

As a relevant comparison, when I started selling SealSkinz products, they specifically gave me access to their product photos and product descriptions. My agreement was with the USA office, so I did not offer international shipping on those items.

 

[noob in 89]

Ouch. I’ve seen countless people on eBay/Grailed use images from like Need Supply as their main image, as it looks better than the same garment draped across their bed in poor lighting.

 

[Van Veen]

Ouch. I’ve seen countless people on eBay/Grailed use images from like Need Supply as their main image, as it looks better than the same garment draped across their bed in poor lighting.

Technically illegal, but most of the time companies don't bother with it. Looks like in this situation the reseller got too big to ignore.

 

[kbadgley84]

I know Someone who was buying allbirds from a discount store in bulk and selling on Poshmark, allbirds contacted them and threatened to sue if they didn’t stop. Allbirds said it was some sort of breath of contract they had with the discount store

 

[noob in 89]

Huh. Wouldn’t that be on the discount store, though? I’d ask Allbirds to either buy the Poshmark shoes or go away.

 

[kbadgley84]

Yea i think It was more of a scare tactic but the store did get in trouble and would only let people buy 2 pair per person max

 

[Fueco]

I know Someone who was buying allbirds from a discount store in bulk and selling on Poshmark, allbirds contacted them and threatened to sue if they didn’t stop. Allbirds said it was some sort of breath of contract they had with the discount store

If there was a breach of contract, that would only be on the store your friend bought from.

 

[kbadgley84]

If there was a breach of contract, that would only be on the store your friend bought from.

Yes that’s what they were told, it was kind of confusing, it was basically a cease and desist but not official.

 

[Fueco]

All photography is copyrighted unless specifically listed as free for use (Creative Commons and such sites).

If someone is using someone else’s photos without permission, and using Patagonia’s logo in their listings (which appears to be part of Patagonia’s complaint), they are in clear violation of copyright law.

As a relevant comparison, when I started selling SealSkinz products, they specifically gave me access to their product photos and product descriptions. My agreement was with the USA office, so I did not offer international shipping on those items.

I should add that the issue of copyright with regards to photography goes deep for me. Years ago (early 2000s), I had a climbing guidebook author borrow steal a bunch of pics from my website to put in his guidebook. He claimed that everything on the internet was public domain. I told him that if he did it again, I would sue him. In the guidebook, I was listed under photographers, but it said that all uncredited photos were by the author (non of the pics were directly credited in the book except for the cover shots). One of my good friends is a patent lawyer at Microsoft, and you can sure as hell bet that I had the issue thoroughly covered...

 

[Fueco]

Here's one for you blocklists (opened an unauthorized transaction case through PayPal two months after the Ebay sale):

decorationtime

 

[tonylamer]

Anyone ever seen this seller's stuff? He keyword spams his listings so you think you're getting a poster. He sends you a page from the NME or Billboard that he's slapped in a cheap frame I assume he gets in bulk from China. I guess he defends it by saying it's an ad showing a promo poster. He must've made hundreds of thousands of dollars doing this. That's a sold listing for a $130 piece of newsprint from the NME.