Public Citizen Blog - eBay Strikes Back, Sues for Frivolous DMCA Takedowns

Tabberone Logo
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

The Tabberone™ Archives
These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement.
When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/ebay-strikes-ba.html
January 5, 2008

Public Citizen Litigation Group

Saturday, January 05, 2008

eBay Strikes Back, Sues for Frivolous DMCA Takedowns
by Greg Beck
A while back I wrote about a case in which an eBay seller sued a company called Innovate! Technology for wrongly invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to cancel his eBay auctions. Although the company claimed that the eBay sales infringed its intellectual property rights, its real complaint was that the sales did not comply with its minimum pricing policy. In other words, the company claimed that its intellectual property rights were violated because its products were priced too low.
Innovate Technology! responded to the suit with what seems to have been a huge tactical blunder: it impleaded eBay, asserting that, if it were held liable to the eBay seller, it would be entitled to indemnification from the auction company. Probably not a good move. eBay generally stays out of DMCA disputes and simply follows the DMCA's statutory takedown provisions, which provide it with immunity from damages. But it could not ignore a lawsuit, and yesterday filed an answer and counterclaim against Innovate! for abuse of the DMCA process, seeking damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction prohibiting Innovate! from filing any more DMCA notices.
From eBay's countersuit:

Innovate has repeatedly filed notices of claimed infringement ("NOCI") alleging that the sale . . . of Innovate products infringes Innovate’s intellectual property rights when in fact Innovate does not have a good faith belief that its intellectual property rights have been violated.
* * *
Instead, [the NOCI] are an effort by Innovate to impede the legitimate re-sale of Innovate product by bona fide purchasers . . . by knowingly misrepresenting it sintellectual property rights in an attempt to manipulate the secondary product market/s through artificially higher prices. Upon information and belief, to date, Innovate’s conduct has improperly caused the removal of more than 100 listings from the eBay website.
* * *
Innovate’s practices prevent buyers from purchasing genuine items at the best prices the market will bear.

Other cases like this have been brought before (some by Public Citizen), but as far as I know this is the first time that eBay has itself asserted a claim for abuse of the DMCA. It looks like eBay is using this case to make an example out of one of the many companies that are abusing the process at the expense of eBay sellers, consumers, and eBay itself. I think eBay has a strong case.
Posted by Greg Beck on Saturday, January 05, 2008 at 08:43 AM

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<