A related story from Fortune online Legal
Pad<http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/> With
Roger Parloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 Is eBay complying with the French court order?

Though eBay (EBAY <http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=EBAY>) is
still basking in its recent
victory<http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/14/ebay-triumphs-in-tiffany-counterfeiting-case/>in
Manhattan federal court — where a district judge Monday rejected
Tiffany's (TIF <http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TIF>) attempts to
hold it responsible for counterfeit sales of "Tiffany" silver jewelry — I
need to crash the party with a ticklish question. It stems from eBay's
recent 
losses<http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/09/ebay-scrambles-to-reverse-loss-in-lvmh-case/>to
Rolex, Hermès International, and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (
LVMUY <http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=LVMU.Y>) regarding the
same issues in German and French courts.

There's a live French court
injunction<http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/11/ebay-denied-stay-in-lvmh-case/>against
eBay at the moment forbidding it from allowing any sales of four
specific LVMH perfumes — Givenchy, Guerlain, Kenzo, and Christian Dior — on
any of its sites accessible from France. But, from all I can tell, eBay
doesn't seem to be in compliance with it. (The injunction is not limited to
counterfeit sales, but extends even to sales of *genuine* perfumes. That's
because LVMH sells these perfumes only through licensed exclusive
distributors, who are not authorized to sell them over eBay, and the French
court is honoring and enforcing LVMH's exclusive distributing contracts.
U.S. courts will not ordinarily do that, since sales of genuine articles
through unauthorized channels — "gray-marketeering" –  is generally
considered legal here and beneficial to the consumer.)

Here's what I mean. Go to http://www.ebay.fr/ and do a search for "Kenzo
parfum" — or any of the other forbidden brands — and see if you still don't
get dozens of responses.

Of course, I'm in New York, so it's conceivable that eBay's using some sort
of geographic filtering technique that isn't blocking me from seeing those
offerings, but which does block viewers who are logging on in France, in
which case everything would be fine.

So I asked an LVMH spokesperson what they're seeing in France when they do
those searches.

She wrote back yesterday (July 15), "As of this morning, if one visited
those sites — ebay.com and ebay.fr — in France, a significant number of the
perfumes appear for sale. That is not in compliance with the injunction."

So then I asked eBay: Am I misunderstanding the injunction, or is eBay still
not yet in compliance?

"You are not misunderstanding the injunction," a spokeswoman from eBay
Europe politely wrote back. "We are actively working towards finding an
effective solution. We will comply as technically and humanly possible. I
will keep you . . .  posted when we have some news to share in this
direction."

But today is July 16 and the injunction — which had been foreseeable for
months — was issued on June 30, and eBay lost its attempt to stay its
immediate impact last Friday (July 11). Courts don't respond well when
defendants don't carry out their orders. As Microsoft found out a few years
ago, telling judges that, in effect, they "just don't get the technology"
doesn't play well.

(Here, by the way, is an interesting blog item from Joe Nocera at *The New
York Times*, entitled "EBay's Pyrrhic
Victory,"<http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/ebays-pyrrhic-victory/>on
the
*Tiffany* ruling.)

*Some Technical Stuff: *

For those who have been trying to understand exactly what the French ruling
does and doesn't do, reporters — including me — have not been making things
crystal clear for you.

What I and others have been calling "the LVMH ruling" is really a trio of
rulings in three related cases. All were decided on June 30 by the
Commercial Court of Paris, and the cumulative damage award imposed upon eBay
from all three totaled more than $60 million. The cases include:

1. *Louis Vuitton Malletier v. eBay*: This is a case for damages for
counterfeit sales of handbags, fashion accessories, and ready-to-wear items
sold on eBay's sites from about 2001 to 2006. LVM did not seek an injunction
in this case. Here is the English language version of the
ruling<http://fortunelegalpad.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/lvmhebay.pdf>.
(Here's the French language
version<http://fortunelegalpad.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/decision-lvm-contre-ebay1.pdf>
.)

2. *Christian Dior Couture v. eBay*: This is also a case for damages for
past counterfeit sales of handbags, fashion accessories, and ready-to-wear
items. I don't have an English language version yet. (The French ruling can
be found 
here<http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=2354>
.)

3. *Parfums Christian Dior v. eBay:* This is the case relating to the four
LVMH perfumes: Givenchy, Guerlain, Kenzo, and Christian Dior. This suit
seeks both damages *and injunctive relief* and it concerns both
counterfeiting *and* sales of *genuine *products through unauthorized
channels. Again, I don't have an English language version yet. (The French
language ruling is
here<http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=2351>.
The French language Court of Appeals ruling denying the stay of the
injunction is 
here<http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=2372>
.)

eBay has said it plans to appeal the rulings in all three cases, but it is
focusing initially on the third one, because that's the only one that
includes an injunction. The injunction is enforceable by fines of 50,000
euros a day (about $80,000).

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I do not think we have necessarily heard the last of this one yet.
> Phil
>

         Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
   ___________________________________________________________________
              How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
                                    
       Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
            In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
                                    
    The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to