We recently commented on a Japanese poll showing a majority of Japanese citizens condoning the purchase of counterfeit goods. Anecdotally, we have further evidence of this worldwide trend in the American Presidential race.
The Authentics Foundation will studiously avoid the appearance of favoritism or partisanship during this American presidential election season. Counterfeiting is, after all, a problem that transcends party loyalties, and we are hopeful that both major tickets would use the levers of American Federal Government power to fight counterfeiting. But given that, we would be remiss if we did not comment on this recent photo of Sarah Palin's daughter Piper carrying a fake Louis Vuitton bag.
We do not know, of course, who purchased the bag or if the Palins were aware that Piper's handbag was counterfeit. And even so, a huge swath of Americans do not realize how profits from counterfeit goods can fund some truly undesirable activities such as child labor or criminal enterprises. The Palins also have a lot on their minds these days. Nevertheless, that the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate can casually tote a fake handbag through a minefield of media and image handlers illustrates how deeply ingrained the consumption of counterfeit goods is, even in faraway Alaska. Highly discouraging stuff.
Showing posts with label Louis Vuitton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Louis Vuitton. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Laying a Trap
Frustrated by light sentences for counterfeiters who scamper back into the dark forest after wrist slaps for counterfeiting, Louis Vuitton laid a trap in Canada and netted itself some big game.
Counterfeiting law in Canada resembles much of criminal law - light sentences for first-time offenders, with heavier sentences imposed for those who show a willful disregard for the law. Louis Vuitton took advantage of this escalating punishment system and human nature. According to this account found on IPBlog.ca, Louis Vuitton entered a settlement agreement with several proprietors of counterfeit goods in Vancouver in 2006. The amounts of the settlement barely amounted to wrist slaps - fines of $6,000 against each of three defendants (two corporations and one individual). After the settlement, though, Louis Vuitton kept paying attention to the defendants, who all reverted to their old counterfeiting ways. Armed with this previous settlement agreement, Louis Vuitton struck again, and obtained judgments nearing $1 million total. And, the judge allowed a "piercing of the corporate veil", enabling Louis Vuitton to hold the directors of these corporations personally liable for these bad corporate acts. Ouch.
The good news for the defendants? At least the presiding judge (the Honourable Madam Justice Mary Ellen Boyd) refrained from granting Louis Vuitton findings of contempt of court against the defendants. Which means that, if they decide to go to drink from that well again, the punishment could be worse.
UPDATED 08/08/08: More on this case here. The one defendant who did show up at trial left during a lunch break on the first day of trial and did not return.
Counterfeiting law in Canada resembles much of criminal law - light sentences for first-time offenders, with heavier sentences imposed for those who show a willful disregard for the law. Louis Vuitton took advantage of this escalating punishment system and human nature. According to this account found on IPBlog.ca, Louis Vuitton entered a settlement agreement with several proprietors of counterfeit goods in Vancouver in 2006. The amounts of the settlement barely amounted to wrist slaps - fines of $6,000 against each of three defendants (two corporations and one individual). After the settlement, though, Louis Vuitton kept paying attention to the defendants, who all reverted to their old counterfeiting ways. Armed with this previous settlement agreement, Louis Vuitton struck again, and obtained judgments nearing $1 million total. And, the judge allowed a "piercing of the corporate veil", enabling Louis Vuitton to hold the directors of these corporations personally liable for these bad corporate acts. Ouch.
The good news for the defendants? At least the presiding judge (the Honourable Madam Justice Mary Ellen Boyd) refrained from granting Louis Vuitton findings of contempt of court against the defendants. Which means that, if they decide to go to drink from that well again, the punishment could be worse.
UPDATED 08/08/08: More on this case here. The one defendant who did show up at trial left during a lunch break on the first day of trial and did not return.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
eBay Verdict Roundup
Pundits and prognosticators are weighing in on the Paris' Tribunal de Commerce's verdict in which it ordered eBay to pay LVMH Möet Hennessy Louis Vuitton and sister company Christian Dior SA $63.1 million of damages relating to eBay's sales of counterfeit and unauthorized LVMH goods.
Law.com
New York Times
Time (with a focus on French internet provincialism in the wake of the LVMH decision and an earlier French court judgment against eBay in favor of Hermes).
Citing the unusually large damages, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog wonders whether the victory and staggering damages were a product of "home cooking," with a French court ruling for a French company (and against an American company).
Women's Wear Daily notes a less noticed aspect of the decision - a separate award of $4.7 million to LVMH for eBay's selling of brands Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Guerlain and Parfums Givenchy through unauthorized distribution channels. The French court also ordered eBay to stop selling these brands or face a fine of $79,000 per day.
On the other hand, Richard Waters, writing in the Financial Times, says that focusing on the distribution channel aspect of the decision is an attempt by eBay to distract from the meat of the anti-counterfeiting holding. Waters also draws parallels between eBay's legal challenges in the trademark sphere and copyright challenges facing YouTube.
Meanwhile, BusinessWeek looks at the totality of the eBay ruling and speculates on whether it might be a precedent for the Tiffany v. eBay case currently being decided in New York. BusinessWeek also speculates on the effects of these cases on eBay's bottom line and business model.
Law.com
New York Times
Time (with a focus on French internet provincialism in the wake of the LVMH decision and an earlier French court judgment against eBay in favor of Hermes).
Citing the unusually large damages, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog wonders whether the victory and staggering damages were a product of "home cooking," with a French court ruling for a French company (and against an American company).
Women's Wear Daily notes a less noticed aspect of the decision - a separate award of $4.7 million to LVMH for eBay's selling of brands Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Guerlain and Parfums Givenchy through unauthorized distribution channels. The French court also ordered eBay to stop selling these brands or face a fine of $79,000 per day.
On the other hand, Richard Waters, writing in the Financial Times, says that focusing on the distribution channel aspect of the decision is an attempt by eBay to distract from the meat of the anti-counterfeiting holding. Waters also draws parallels between eBay's legal challenges in the trademark sphere and copyright challenges facing YouTube.
Meanwhile, BusinessWeek looks at the totality of the eBay ruling and speculates on whether it might be a precedent for the Tiffany v. eBay case currently being decided in New York. BusinessWeek also speculates on the effects of these cases on eBay's bottom line and business model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
