Seller’s Remorse
I put 3 pairs of vintage Kenneth Cole oxfords on Ebay the other day. My aunt gave them to me, but they were too narrow for my feet. It was my first time selling on Ebay. At first I thought about selling them through a consignment shop. They offered me 55% of the sales price if I chose to take in-store credit, a 50-50 split, or 35% cash. At first the 55% sounded good, because there were a couple of items in the store that I wanted, but when I went back, they were gone. Sadness. Then I got to thinking that I wanted all of the money and didn’t want to split it with anyone anyway. So I put them on Ebay. It cost me a total of like $2 and some change for all three pairs.
Now, I’m addicted to selling my stuff! I have thought of at least nine other items that I own that would be great to sell, in order to put the money towards new items. But, for some reason, I am having a hard time parting with the items! I’ll think ooooh! I can sell that Louie! Then, I’ll think, but wait, what if I want to carry it again (knowing that I won’t). I could certainly use the $$ and the space. I don’t know if it’s the fact that I’m selling it for waaay less than what I paid, or that I think I will regret it later, that is the problem, or what.
How do you cope with getting rid of your stuff?
Tale of the Counterfeit Bag Carrying IP Lawyer
I was at a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) last week sitting in a session on intellectual property when I saw the most unbelieveable thing: another lawyer sitting in the same session on intellectual property, carrying a knockoff Louis Vuitton bag! She looked so confident. Her head held high.
Over the weekend I kept thinking, “What does this mean? There must be some sort of conflict of interest. How can Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady protect the interests of her client, Brand Owner, and at the same time disregard the legal protection that has been granted to another brand owner? Certainly she wouldn’t buy a knockoff of Brand Owner’s products. Is Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady characteristically unfit?!
Then, my concerns were confirmed when I came across this article about Professor Dan Ariely, who has done studies and written the report, “Faking It: The Psychology of Dishonesty and Counterfeits,”on how counterfeit goods influence people in other aspects of their lives. “The effect on morality, people don’t anticipate,” says the Professor. Among his findings: People who were told they were wearing “fake” designer sunglasses were significantly more likely to cheat on tests than ones told they were wearing “real” ones.
Prof. Ariely findings didn’t exactly clear things up for me. Counterfeit Bag Carrying Lawyer Lady is undoubtedly held to a higher standard. And she certainly knows better. But is she categorically “immoral” for her faux designer bag carrying ways? There’s an interesting debate about the study going on over at The New York Times. One of my favorite comments:
I question if this if the real online NY Times or the fake version. Both versions might keep me informed but the real version just gives me a certain feeling of satisfaction that is hard to explain.
How do we know Prof. Ariely is a fake and an importer? Did he fake his results after lying to all those people about the brand of their sunglasses. Who checked his morality and results after his deceptions?
Someone should do a study on women who wear hair weaves.
Louis Vuitton sues Danity Kane for Trademark Infringement
No. You’re not having déjà vu. Louis is at it again. Danity Kane recently settled a dispute brought on by their use of Louis Vuitton trademarks in the song “Show Stopper” off of their debut album and the accompanying video. You remember the lyrics “Bet you ain’t never seen, Chicks ridin’ this clean, Louis Vuitton seats, We do it deadly.” DK’s management (Diddy and them) have agreed to make an amended version of the album available and remove the images from the video.
Louis sued Britney Spears a while back for displaying the LV logo in one of her videos, and denied rapper T.I. permission to use the products in his video for the song “Swing Ya Rag” off of his most recent album, Paper Trail. But that’s not all, folks. See more here, and here, and here.
Why is Louis so protective of his brand? Let me try to break it down for you. It’s actually quite simple. Well, sort of. Louis Vuitton has been granted trademarks (exclusive rights to use) for the LV logo and words “Louis Vuitton”. So, therefore, Louis can use the LV logo any way he damn well pleases (which would explain why there was no problem here, or here, or here ), and prevent others from using them without permission. Louis actually has a legal obligation to police the use of the marks in order to keep his rights.
Anyone who uses the marks without permission is an infringer. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule but, no bright line rules. Use of the marks for discussion (like here) or to criticize is called “fair use”, and is legal. Which might explain, if you were wondering, why DK’s use of the words “Louis Vuitton” in the song was challenged. Louis would argue that the group’s use was not for comment or criticism, but purely for the artist’s desire to sell albums, an illegal use. DK’s counsel perhaps didn’t believe that the alternative argument would hold up in court, hence the settlement. Or, perhaps economically, it just wasn’t worth arguing over. But, note that T.I. hasn’t re-released his album without the words Gucci or Loui (which Louis just might have trademarked).
Which leaves the only remaining question why did Louis deny DK, Britney and T.I. permission, either before or after their unauthorized uses, to use the marks? Well, we know T.I. got himself in some legal trouble that Louis understandably wants no association with. But, DK and Britney… in legal terms, it’s called dilution.
leave a comment