Wow.  It looks like London socialite, Taiwanese Rebecca Wang just lost a nice chunk of her collection to a burglar who either has great taste in all things luxury or more likely- sees the resale value in them.  The thief took off with handbags and jewelry including:

1. SEVEN Hermes Birkin handbags valued at more than $75,000
2. Two pieces of luggage and four bags by Louis Vuitton valued at $15,000
3. A Cartier diamond ring worth $61,000
4. A $31,000 Chanel gold and diamond bracelet watch
5. Antique diamond jewelry
6. $20,000 in cash

She’s seeking $1.4 million from the owners of the Mayfair apartment that she rented for $9,000 a week because the alarm was defective (so her “general factotum” who was in the building-wasn’t alerted to what was going on in her residence).  And because the owners knew that she was “an extr-emely wealthy woman”, and yet, only supplied her a small safe.

The safe wasnt’ big enough for all of her valuables, so she created a “secure room”… that apparently wasn’t secure.

Read the whole story in The Independent…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 

Remember the Sony BMG case from last year- where Louis Vuitton sued for unauthorized use of their trademark?  Well, it looks like the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.  Rumors put it at $240,000 and $155,830 for both cases.

It was over quite a few issues, including the Britney Spears video “Do Somethin’”, pictured above, where she’s driving the Pink Hummer with fakey cherry blossom interior, Ruben Studdard’s Louis Vuitton monogramed cover for his “The Return” CD, and a video of Da Brat’s where there are just a bunch of different LV pieces pictured that Louis Vuitton never did (beach umbrella? Multicolore Beach Ball?  etc. etc.)

This comment from Crains made total sense to me:

“Sony’s case against Louis Vuitton was likely damaged by the fact that the artists did not use genuine LVMH products in the infractions, said Peter Sloane, an attorney at Ostrolenk Faber LLP who specializes in trademarks and copyrights. In the case of Ms. Spears, Louis Vuitton does not make dashboard covers or even sell reams of logo fabric that could be fashioned as such.”

I mean, this is just true.  I’ve seen album covers with authentic Louis Vuitton luggage on it (Dwight Yoakam anyone) and music videos that include authentic Louis Vuitton pieces in them (numerous including Fergie’s classic, My Humps).  I mean, Kanye West declared himself the Louis Vuitton Don- and LVMH’s response?  He’s now designing a footware line for Louis Vuitton, sits front row at LV fashion shows & is paid big bucks to play for their parties.  Even Louis Vuitton likes the right kind of exposure.  The real key is, at the very least- the items have to be authentic.

Part of the terms of the settlement are that Ruben’s CD’s are pulled- and that Britney and Da Brat’s videos are no longer distributed.  I mean, it’s too bad, but I really can not believe that these people have professional managers and advisors, and none of were told that this would be wrong.

I love the little note at the bottom of this New Yorker Magazine article that says,

“In fact, according to our calculations, with the total winnings minus the Studdard bonus, the company can buy itself, why, 130 airport rolling bags!” (The Louis Vuitton retails at between about $1900 and $2995)

But it clearly wasn’t about the money.  Another part of the settlement required the parties to admit they were wrong, and to refrain from violating Louis Vuitton’s intellectual property rights.

From, Marketwatch:

“Nathalie Moulle-Berteaux, Intellectual Property Director of Louis Vuitton said, ‘We are very pleased to have successfully resolved these matters in a manner that protects our brand and our customers. We believe the terms of this agreement will provide strong protection to our brand worldwide, and we are gratified that Sony BMG has agreed to educate its record labels about our trademarks and copyrights in order to prevent the misuse of our intellectual property in the future.’”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 
(Photo Credit: AP Photo- Richard Drew) Well, this is fantastic news for us here at FASHIONPHILE- and for others who are just trying to run an honest business on eBay selling luxury brands.  And, hey- chalk one up for the literally thousands of individual- honest sellers of legitimate luxury goods, who just want the ability to post their authentic goods on eBay.

I am always worried when rights owners use trademark arguments to keep such tight reign on their brand distribution that legitimate resale of authentic goods is limited.  This is what happened in France with the LVMH v eBay, resulting in all LVMH perfumes being banned from the site.  And this is what worried me the most about the Tiffany & co. case.No honest seller wants any counterfeits available on eBay.  It hurts all of us.  Even though we only sell authentic luxury bags- when the reputation of eBay is damaged in such a way, that potential buyers associate online sales with only fakes- we lose and eBay loses and the potential buyer loses the opportunity  to purchase an authentic item at a discount.

At this point- at least with highly counterfeited brands like Louis Vuitton, Tiffany & Co, Chanel, etc. eBay has taken specific measures to keep the fakes off.  They do what a gatekeeper can do- make sure that seller’s are legitimate, that they are who they say they are, eliminate one day auctions, deal with second chance offer fraud, etc.   They’ve made great strides since early 2006- and the results are amazing.  The only way to “finish the job” and truly clean up the marketplace is to have rights owners get more involved.

Judge Richard Sullivan said regarding the Tiffany & Co. case…

“Tiffany has failed to demonstrate that eBay knowingly encouraged others to dilute Tiffany’s trademarks.  Rather, to the extent that eBay may have possessed general knowledge of infringement and dilution by sellers on its Web site, eBay did not possess knowledge or a reason to know of specific instances of trademark infringement or dilution as required under the law.”

If you want to read more about it…

New York Times

Reuters

Wall Street Journal

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Un-be-freaking-leavable…

Like I’ve said before… Louis Vuitton is well within its rights to do what it needs to do to get the counterfeits out of here.  And even, to perhaps seek sanctions for past gross negligence… But this is going too far- big time.

Basically, today the Court of Appeals upheld a June 30 ruling that has ordered eBay to stop allowing the listing of any Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Guerlain and Parfums Givenchy fragrances and cosmetics on eBay France.

eBay’s is already appealing the original $63.2 million ruling on negligence in allowing Louis Vuitton counterfeits on the site… But they were trying to get an emergency injunctive order after a review of the part that forbid them from allowing sellers to list authentic LVMH perfumes (that were sold outside of Louis Vuitton’s regular, authorized distribution channels) on the site- or face the unreal DAILY fine of 50,000 euros, or $79,000.

So, the appeals court basically upheld the fine and in fact- upped the ante- ordering eBay to pay an additional $15,736!

Wow.  I mean, what would it do to the value of any luxury good- if it no longer had resale value?   A lot of people buy cars, art, jewelry (and handbags) with their inherent resale value- and even, investment value in mind.    Unreal.

Again… I’m on the egde of my seat to find out what a US Court will say in a similar situation (Tiffany & Co. v. eBay).  Any day now…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 

Whenever I see these little video guides- I just think to myself, why didn’t they get someone on there who knows what they are talking about. This is Molly Wood for CNet- Spotting Designer Knockoffs Online. “How To Tell Phonies From The Real McCoy!“  CBS’s put it on their morning show.  It was in response to the $61 million Louis Vuitton v eBay decision.  For example, here is the first hint on their website:

“… Louis Vuitton bags have five stitches across the top, the snaps all say Louis Vuitton, the color is specific. What should the zipper look like? Look for lots of clear, detailed photos with the listings. “     

(Which is partly true…. SOME Louis Vuitton bags have only five stitches across the top of the leather tab– the traditional monogram Speedys for example.  This is NOT true of all bags.  Some vintage bags do NOT have Louis Vuitton on the hardware.  Yes, look at the zipper and make sure it’s the right style for that bag.  And I agree, make sure there are good, detailed pictures.)

Hey, at least it isn’t as bad as my favorite worst video guide of all time.  Check it out if you haven’t.  It’s HILARIOUS!!! 

And, Molly… if you need a hand with one of those videos- give me a ring! You know I’d be happy to help you out.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

We knew they’d appeal… but here is eBay’s official media response (From the eBay Ink blog, read more here)

The bolded parts are particularly interesting to me…

“eBay Inc issued the following statement:
If Counterfeits appear on our sites we take them down swiftly, but today’s ruling is not about our fight against counterfeit; today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday.

We believe that this ruling represents a loss not only for us but for consumers and small businesses selling online, therefore we will appeal. It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners’ desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower everyday.

We believe that the overreach manifests itself through an attempt to impose, in France, a business model that restricts consumer choice through an anti-competitive business practice.

The ruling also seeks to impact the sale of second-hand goods as well as new genuine products, effectively reaching into homes and rolling back the clock on the Internet and liberty it has created. The attempt to use the ruling to confuse the separate issues of counterfeit and restrictive sales suggests that counterfeit suits are being used by certain brand owners as a stalking-horse issue to reinforce their control over the market.

eBay does more and more to combat counterfeit. We invest more than $20 million each year to ensure counterfeit goods are found and removed. We partner with over 18,000 brand owners around the world to identify and successfully remove counterfeit goods and employ over 2,000 people to carry out this fight on a daily basis. When we find counterfeit goods on our sites we take it down.

Overzealous enforcement of restrictive sales practices are anti-competitive and give consumers a bad deal. This is recognised by European Union policy-makers who are seeking to create a better framework for online sales to promote e-commerce in Europe. We support a free and fair market in Europe and the benefits this will bring for our sellers.

eBay will continue to fight against counterfeit and continue to fight for consumer value through the promotion of e-commerce.

What do you think?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ouch… a Paris Court ordered eBay to pay $63 million in damages to Louis Vuitton for negligence in allowing the sales of counterfeit Louis Vuitton on the website.  (Read more about it here…)

You have to hand it to Louis Vuitton.  They got the job done.  They single handedly lit a fire under the figurative backside of eBay Inc, and got them to do what needed so much to be done… to clean up the marketplace.

The court decision makes so much sense to me… and obviously eBay is appealing, but the fake situation on eBay was SO bad for SO long… it’s not shocking that the courts would lay down a heavy hand.

Let’s face it.  eBay has made a lot, and I mean a LOT of money on the sale of counterfeit goods on their site.  (I’m estimating on average eBay sells about 16,000 Louis Vuitton items a month at an average sales price of $375 with average start prices of $175.  That makes the average fee for Louis Vuitton items at about $17.  Multiply that times 192,000 items a year… and we’re looking at $3.8 million in fees annually for the LV brand alone.  LV’s claim of 90% fake on eBay was probably about right until the big overhaul in fall 2006… so you do the math.)

I mean, we (putting myself with the collective community of online shoppers to whom authenticity absolutely essential) had been almost badgering eBay for years and years to do something… and yet the situation on eBay just literally got worse and worse. The countless fakes, the one day auctions, the zero feedback seller with 50 NWT LV listings, the fake second chance offers, the $75 BINs for $1000 bags.  I mean, now we ask where all the buyers have gone?

They said that nothing more could be done- they were doing all they could, they’re just a venue, yada, yada, yada.  A few years ago, I could go through a whole page of Louis Vuitton listings on eBay and literally not find a single authentic bag.

That is not the situation now.  The vast majority of Louis Vuitton listings on eBay today are authentic.

So if eBay was just a venue, and was doing all they could do… what happened?

Tiffany & Co and Louis Vuitton sued.  eBay woke up.  They turned on the lights, swept the place out, cleaned the place up, batten down the hatches and locked the doors.

It was hard for all of us to adjust at first, but eBay has taken the right first steps to improve the atmosphere and the trust level that we all needed in a platform to be able to sell authentic luxury goods online.

eBay now monitors closely brands that are frequently counterfeited.  There are restrictions on how long you have to be selling on the site to list those brands, and how many you can list at once.  There is particular wording watched for that gives red flags that a listing may be fraudulent.  Brands that are watched don’t get listed immediatley, but go through and overview process for up to 10 hours before they hit the site.

eBay has come a long way, baby!

So I’m fine with the damages awarded by the Parisian Court…

What is frightening part to me:

Part of that ruling includes payment of 3.25 million Euros to Christian Dior, Givenchy, Kenzo and Guerlain for allowing perfume to be sold outside of the “authorized network”.

The result of this part of the decision is that eBay is completely barred from listing these cosmetic and perfume brands on its site PERIOD.

eBay’s “official response”:

“Today’s ruling is not about our fight against counterfeits; today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that EBay empowers everyday,” EBay said in an e-mailed statement. “We will fight this ruling on their behalf.”

Yipes?  So I get J’adore Dior perfume for my birthday and never use it (which I did, and I don’t… it’s just not my favorite).  I now can’t list it on eBay because I am not a member of the authorized distribution network for Christian Dior?

Hmmm… got to get back to you when I look into this more.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 

The Louis Vuitton v. eBay decision that is.  It should be here on the 30th- tomorrow that is.

Are you ready?

After that amazing Candadian decision- $1 million for a fairly small fashion store (with only a couple locations)… and the $30,000 eBay had to pay Hermes last month after a decision against them in a French court for allowing 3 (yes, three) fake Hermes on the site…  I’m DYING to hear what the French Courts are going to say in the Louis Vuitton lawsuit against eBay Inc.

Louis Vuitton, et al, is seeking 51 million Euro ($80 MILLION) in damages for negligence and the illicit sales of counterfeit bags on their site.

(As an aside- as someone who’s been on eBay since 1999, I will say that eBay has done a pretty good job in the last couple years at getting, I’d estimate 95% LESS fake Louis Vuitton listed on the site than they did years ago…

There was a day when the vast, vast majority of the Louis Vuitton bags listed on the site were fake.  Now, the opposite is true.)

This is the part that scares me…

Part of the decision will answer perfume brands Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo who have an issue with eBay even when they allow AUTHENTIC goods to be listed.  They claim that even this is illegal because these companies hold tight control on their distribution chains and ONLY permit specialist, authorized dealers to sell their goods.

I can’t wait…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

                     (Mark Patrick for the Richmond Review)

The British Colombia Supreme Court said Friday, that owners of Wynnie Lee Fashions must pay $980,000 in damages to Louis Vuitton Canada Inc.

Apparently, Louis Vuitton Canada has been trying to get this family to stop selling counterfeits for years now.  In 2004, hundreds of items were seized by court order.  In 2005, Louis Vuitton sent cease and desist letters which ended up with a federal court judgment against them.

This is the ironic part, the Monday after the landmark, million dollar judgement, the BC Local News reported:

“Gucci, Baby Phat and Coach handbags were selling for half price Monday afternoon at Wynnie Lee Fashions on No. 3 Road, where the sole sales clerk appeared oblivious to a landmark court decision that came down against the store late last week.

What appeared to be counterfeit name-brand purses continued to be openly offered for the bargain basement price of $50, and the store was packed with lunch-time shoppers.”

Wow.  Some people never learn.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Yipes. So, it seems that Clint Arthur bought two Murakami prints at the MOCA pop up Louis Vuitton boutique for $6,000 each.

He came home and I guess he felt a little miffed because 1) there was no authentication paperwork and 2) the paperwork he did have said that, “This artwork is signed and numbered by the artist on the chassis.” He was hoping for a “this is number 12 out of 100 type thing… But. the only thing on the back was a “a dark M-shaped squiggle”.

Anyway… so he goes poking around and he finds that Sections 1740-1745 of the California Civil Code gives specific guidelines for art dealers selling “multiples”.

The deal is that California law mandates that sellers of limited edition pieces of art to disclose specific information on authenticity and the limited nature of the work. Which sounds fair…

But get this… violation of these sections allows for triple damages! Interesting that he’s suing Louis Vuitton- not Murakami or MOCA.  Yeah- something tells me he’s hoping to make quite a turnaround on that $12,000 investment!

Read more on this story from the LA Times.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!