The New York Times says eBay should still police for counterfeits if it wants to win back customers:

eBay would generate enormous goodwill if it instituted a policy of proactively fighting fraud on the site, instead of forcing companies to point out individual items, day after day, which it then takes down.

That's true, but eBay would also win goodwill if it didn't allow luxury companies to bully individuals who are obviously reselling their used luxury goods—it's pretty obvious that when a company like LVMH goes after a person selling a single used, slightly damaged luxury case, they're not really concerned with stomping out counterfeiting rings.

This hard-to-read press release from something called the "Luxury Institute" (an institute for luxury? I want to work there!) calls the ruling an "egregious injustice to the consumer" because it removes any protection from the customer—a valid claim (despite the source) that resonates with anyone who's been scammed on eBay. The Luxury Insititute suggests alternate luxury auction sites like Portero.com.

BusinessWeek quotes an e-commerce advocate who says the ruling also helps keep the marketplace more open, by taking some of the power away from companies like LVMH and Tiffany:

Many of the smaller vendors that make a living selling through eBay were also relieved at the verdict. Had the U.S. judge echoed the opinions of European courts, major brands that did not want their merchandise to be resold on a discount site would have had a strong weapon to keep resellers from advertising their brand names online, even when dealing with genuine articles. "This was never about controlling counterfeits. It was really about how consumers could buy and sell Tiffany's products and maintaining margins," says Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a coalition that advocates for e-commerce. "If you aren't born with a Tiffany silver spoon in your mouth, you can buy one on eBay."

What do you think? Should eBay be required to police luxury brands more closely, and would that help shoppers in the long run? Or are companies like Tiffany and LVMH using the counterfeit issue to solidify control over online sales of their merchandise?

"Judge to Tiffany: Police Your Own Brand" [BusinessWeek]
(Photo: jillclardy)

My grandfather ordered an engraved Tiffany silver bracelet as a surprise Christmas gift for my grandmother. He had custom engraving put on the bracelet, and had arranged for the bracelet to be delivered to my house about 2 weeks before Christmas. Two weeks after the order (when we should've received the bracelet), there was no bracelet. We gave it another week, and the my grandfather emailed Tiffany customer support. He received an automated response stating that because of the overwhelming Christmas rush, he needed to contact customer support via their 800 number. Of course, the 800 number was impossible to get through to also.

My grandfather, being the laid back man that he is, wasn't really angry, but he wanted to know what was going on with the bracelet. Tiffany customer service ended up calling him on the Friday before Christmas. As luck would have it, he was out fishing, and my grandmother talked to them, thus ruining the surprise. When he returned home, he was able to actually get through to the rep who called him earlier. She informed him that because of a Christmas rush they were not expecting, the bracelet would not be arriving before Christmas. To make up for the fact that they had ruined the surprise and would not be getting the bracelet to my grandfather before Christmas, they would be giving him the order FREE. He asked to clarify, asking if they just meant the shipping or the engraving free, but no, the ENTIRE COST of the order was FREE. Of course, he was blown away (after all, this is a $255 bracelet, plus the cost of engraving and shipping).

Tiffany ended up shipping the bracelet on Saturday, overnighting it to my house where I received it on Monday. There was no invoice or such in the box, so we were still wondering IF the bracelet was actually going to be free (with the final call coming from the credit card bill). Sure enough, when the credit card bill came that would've contained the charge, there was absolutely no charges from Tiffany.

So, it's nice to know that there are indeed some companies who want to keep their reputation that treat their customers well.

Tiffany said that according to the judgment issued by a federal court in New York, Starglam Inc., and its principal, John Shamir, should not engage in any further counterfeiting of Tiffany-branded items or infringing on its trademark.

Starglam and Shamir were also required to pay Tiffany $956,793.15, the company said.

Starglam had been distributing counterfeit Tiffany items in Asia and New York and also on Internet sites like eBay Inc.

Tiffany wins injunction in counterfeit lawsuit [Reuters]
(Photo:Maulliegh)

The center bar on the Farm Teether Rattle could break, releasing small beads and animal figures.

If you're abused by overpriced baubles as a child, you're more likely to abuse other's Puritan-derived sense of modesty as an adult.

Why then Tiffany keeps insisting on trying to kill its future clientele, we have no idea.

(Thanks to Bernard!)

Tiffany is being forced to recall the Paloma Rattle, a $195 2.5 inch ring consisting of nine interlocking silver beads. Testing shows that the circlet's seams can split and spill the beads. Donny and Muffy might then gobble up the shiny balls like unwatched pension plans and asphyxiate. If that doesn't get them, the breakage also produces "ragged" edges.

Unfortunately, no reports of infant choking or laceration have been reported, yet another setback in our fight to smash the oligarchy.

"Paloma Rattles Recalled" [CPSC]