posted on October 12, 2000 10:35:37 PM new
Is Ralph Lauren one of the 'forbidden' companies, like Mary Kay?
I just did a search on Ralph Lauren Polo and 2,814! The bidding looks pretty healthy.
Maybe, if they are forbidden, they just swoop down every once in awhile and knock off a few auctions.
I can't imagine why it would be wrong to sell Ralph Lauren items, unless they are counterfeit...that would be illegal. Whatever you do, don't put 'Selena' in the title...
posted on October 12, 2000 10:57:12 PM new
"those in the VeRO program can cancel your auction for any reason they see fit, as long as they swear your auction is violating their rights."
That's pretty much true. VeRO members sometimes search for keywords and then just have eBay kill the whole list, resulting in some obvious errors (that have been discussed here at AW in previous months). As a practical matter, eBay does little to review these, from what I can tell.
Eventer: If you legally own a RL polo shirt, you can sell it on eBay, and you can call it what it is: A Ralph Lauren polo shirt. There are a couple threads here that discuss the doctrine of first sale, and cite the US Supreme Court decision that clarifies the law. As I understand it (not an attorney), the intellectual property owner loses any control over the subsequent sale of an item once he places it in the stream of commerce. So RL sells the shirt- you buy it. You have every right to sell it as you see fit (this assuming you did not enter into a contract with RL at the time of sale), and to call it a RL shirt.
I'll see if I can find the link to one of the other threads.
posted on October 12, 2000 11:04:10 PM new
Dropping the Selena aspect for this particular post, as I don't really have any more to say on that aspect....
I don't personally know if and how Ralph Lauren is acting as a VERO.
However, if the shirt is a Ralph Lauren, and was bought from legitimate channels, an accurate and complete description could -- and indeed should -- say "Ralph Lauren," because [i]it is a real Ralph Lauren."
I feel the same should be true of any item that has a brand name, was bought in a legitimate way, and is now being sold.
However (and with VERO, this is a MAJOR however) some brand holders have been very (over)aggresive, either pulling anything they proclaim is a false copy (without having to prove it -- the seller being guilty until proven innocent problem), or pulling anything that's their brand, with even less regard to legitimacy.
This is where I do feel the VERO system gets abusive. It has a very large flaw in either its setup or its execution, in my opinion. Until a judge rules on some specific lawsuit brought because of a VERO issue, however, the system will stand.
It is a very confusing looking system, and too much is left arbitrary.
I haven't answered the specific question about Ralph Lauren's behavior. Anyone?
posted on October 12, 2000 11:04:15 PM new
Here's some info (which I cut and paste from a previous post of mine on this topic):
If you buy an item legally, you have a right to sell it. And that includes advertising it and describing it and using its brand name. So, unless you've entered into a contract with the copyright holder, if you own it, you can sell it.
The doctrine is called the "first sale doctrine," and it holds that intellectual property owners who place their copyrighted items into the stream of commerce by selling them, can no longer control the resale of these items.
Here's the relevant US Supreme Court Case from 1998:
****
After the first sale of a copyrighted item “lawfully made under this title,” any subsequent purchaser, whether from a domestic or from a foreign reseller, is obviously an “owner” of that item. Read literally, §109(a) unambiguously states that such an owner “is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell” that item.
The whole point of the first sale doctrine is that once the copyright owner places a copyrighted item in the stream of commerce by selling it, he has exhausted his exclusive statutory right to control its distribution. As we have recognized, the codification of that doctrine in §109(a) makes it clear that the doctrine applies only to copies that are “lawfully made under this title,” but that was also true of the copies involved in the Bobbs-Merrill case, as well as those involved in the earlier cases applying the doctrine. There is no reason to assume that Congress intended either §109(a) or the earlier codifications of the doctrine to limit its broad scope.27
*****
eBay is in an odd position, because of the DMCA. The are required to pull the auctions that IP owners claim to be infringing. There is little or no review; the VeRO members just send an email listing the auctions, and eBay pulls them within a few hours. There is an appeals process, but it's intimidating and few seller would bother.
posted on October 12, 2000 11:20:09 PM newSteve / magazine_guy: Interesting.
I realize you are speaking more generally, but I am suddenly curious about a tangential thing I've been wondering about for awhile (it doesn't really have much, if anything, to do with Selena, beads, roses, hats, Clint, airplanes, or any of the other cases or metaphors). I'm not trying to further muddle the issue so much as to get clarification on one small aspect of buying and selling... (so the rest of you can feel free to skip the rest of this particular note, if you wish ).
Have they commented at all on these "Multilevel Marketing" (MLM) companies (which I take a dim view on) such as Amway and Mary Kay?
While an MLM "downline" seller may be in contract with the "upline," if the seller sells a particular item to someone that doesn't sign up for the MLM process (or do MLM's forbid this? ), that non-contracted buyer should, IMO, now actually own the item, and have full right of reselling that particular unit.
Another case of this might be if an MLM devotee dies, and their relative inherits whatever MLM products the deceased happened to have in the house, and now wants to auction the products off. Are they supposed to know that Amway or Mary Kay demands these unusual terms of its sellers? Are the relatives bound to probably sight-unseen contracts signed by another person? I would think surely not, but they obviously could get VERO'd by the MLM anyway.
(I personally find MLM methodology repulsive, as being too-close-for-comfort kin of pyramid schemes, in my opinion, so I wonder exactly what the above aspect of their legal footing actually is. )
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
posted on October 13, 2000 05:05:45 AM newmzalez -
HCQ is normally sarcastic and satirical, a form of expression that often is misunderstood by others.
"I'm posting here to find if there is a legal way to carry out my marketing idea" I suggest you get in touch with a lawyer who specializes in entertainment and copyright law and ask them. If you persist in using Selena's name to sell your beads, you could get a chance to meet her family up close and personal, or at least the family's lawyer. And it could be financially painful ... very painful.
I think you are dragging the corpse of a popular singer into your auctions in an attempt to boost sales. Legalities aside, it's tacky. None of the articles you cited to prove your point were ADS for products ... they were news and public relations campaigns. Yes, she is associated with that flower, but that does not give you the right to use her name to sell your plastic rose beads.
Magazine_guy:
"Are you saying that if I sell a vintage Life magazine with Marilyn Monroe on the cover, I cannot use MM's name in the advertisement?"
No. You are accurately describing the item, and it was a legal use of her name and image when the magazine was created. (there is "news" usage of a name or image, regardless of permission)
Where the Mardis Gras beads ran afoul of the name usage was that she was using the name on an item that has nothing intrinsically to do with Selena, merely to boost her sales of the item.
"I sell a watch that was legally obtained from the estate of the old guy who was head over heels in love with Anna Nicole Smith (for the few months before he died at 90+). The watch was a gift from Anna Nicole to her briefly deliriously happy hubby."
If you can prove the chain of possession, it's "provenance". In the case of the plastic beads, they were made after Selena's death and have no intrinsic connection to the dead singer.
brooklynguy -
"Selena would have loved this" is an endorsement, although created from the fertile mind of the seller. And the seller is clearly trying to use the celeb's aura nd popularity to boost sales of her plastic beads.
It's illegal to use or imply a celebrity endorsement without having a contract or permission of the celeb or their estate. And when the estate of the dead celeb is scanning for such ads, it's downright foolish.
Cathammer
"Reporting fact, expressing an opinion or making a comparison is perfectly acceptable." For exmple, opining that a black t-shirt is "perfect for a Megadeth fan" is not the same as calling it a "Megadeth t-shirt"...a subtle but significant difference.
In ADVERTISING, the rules are tighter than they are for "editorial" writing (the stuff that magazines call news, and put in there to hold the ads apart). And whenever you are offering something for sale, you have to play by the tighter rules. If it were legal to use the "perfect for a Megadeath fan" phrase in ads, why aren't the magazines and TV shows FULL of ads with that kind of comparison? Could it be that their legal staff told them not to?
eventer
If you are selling a GENUINE Ralph Lauren
shirt, you can use the name in the ad, and I can cite a supreme court decision that gives you the right to do so (check the "Waverley" posts).
If you are selling an imitation, you can't say "Looks just like a real Ralph Lauren" because that is using the name to enhance the value of a non-approved RL product.
posted on October 13, 2000 05:22:10 AM new
Thanks everyone.
I used "Ralph Lauren" merely to have a name to put on a product. What I have to sell is neither a shirt nor a RL, just used it as a hypothetical example.
The item I DO have for sale is genuine, was purchased directly from the company & we have the sales receipts to prove it.
If I correctly understand what everyone posted, then I should be legitimately able to sell it & list the company name in the ad w/o running into VeRO.
However, if I also correctly understand what everyone posted, that doesn't appear to necessarily guarantee I won't run into VeRO IF the company chooses to challenge my ad & legitimate ownership of the item.
What it appears is that they can get ebay to pull the auction, then I'm left to prove I'm not guilty. IOW, it's the reverse of the justice system, I'm guilty until I prove I'm innocent.
Meanwhile, my bidders may be left with the impression I've done something wrong if ebay pulls my auction & notified them. Even if I successfully convince ebay of my right to sell the item, I could still be a loser in my reputation with bidders if the auction is initially pulled somewhere along the line.
To me, THAT is the danger of VeRO. It appears to shoot first & ask questions later.
posted on October 13, 2000 05:53:43 AM new
eventer -
If you get VERO'd, all it takes is a response to eBay, according to a specific legal format. If the VERO rep does not follow through by filing suit in federal court, eBay MUST RESTORE the auction. eBay has no wiggle-room ... they have to pull the challenged material and they have to restore it if you file a counter-challenge and the complaining VERO party does not contest it by filing a lawsuit against you.
The VERO reps are counting on your not knowing that you have a legal right to accurately describe the item and use the name if the item is legit. Y'all are sitting ducks. If more VEROed sellers would shoot back when they are inappropriately VEROed, the company reps would be more careful. If they have too many challenges, their bosses start asking questions.
It shows Selena on her album cover with white roses in the background.
abacaxi, I have no intention of getting sued. I just would like to find a way to sell to Selena fans. I see now how my first ad wasn't the right way to go about doing that. I'm only looking for a solution to my marketing problem, and I do appreciate your input.
The part about dragging her corpse, I really don't think I'm doing that either. It's like saying any fan of a deceased celebrity is obsessed with their corspe. The part of it all being tacky, well that I could see... Mardi Gras beads are tacky jewelry--I doubt you'll be seeing any Martha Stuart beads (although you never know!)
Celebrityskin, you are 100% right on eBay not caring. I really don't think they do, either.
posted on October 13, 2000 07:37:57 AM new
Hi abacaxi,
You're right, editorial use does generally enjoy broader first amendment protection but corporate lawyers may advise against certain action not because it is necessarily illegal, but because it could involve too big a hassle factor or the chance that a suit might prevail or be costly to defend in civil court even if they consider themselves to have done nothing wrong.
Sellers are usually more interested in distinguishing their product as unique than mentioning their competition, but even then you sometimes see a direct mention and comparison (ex. car ads) when they feel it's to their advantage. Others do cite their equivalence to specific brands. A generic antihistamine may say "compare to Sudafed" on the box cover & other products sometimes mention their similarities to well-known brands. Other ad copy, in describing their product or its use, will mention brand names not associated with that product (although often noting that the other is a registered trademark of such-and-such company and that there is no affiliation between the two companies).
I admit it's a grey and subjective area...how much common knowledge of or connection is required between a celebrity and a thing/place/idea/or what-have-you before it bears mention as being significant? I guess it depends on how well you think you can defend your position, but I doubt you'll ever get everyone to agree (which is a good thing in this format...nothing more boring than a thread in which everyone just says "me too" ).
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:10:56 AM new
abacaxi:
So, when you said:
*****
"Using the name or likeness of a celebrity in advertising requires that you have their permission. That usually means PAY for it like other advertisers."
"The only exception would be if you were reselling an authorized Selena product, such as a CD or poster."
*****
You were mistaken, right? Or do you have a source for this claim?
Steve
[ edited by magazine_guy on Oct 13, 2000 08:15 AM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 08:15:10 AM new
Abacaxi,
Most of us understand satire and sarcasm -- we just don't appreaciate it. One would have to be masochistic to enjoy being mocked and ridiculed.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:24:41 AM new
DWest, thanks for saying what I was thinking, too. Sarcasm and ridicule, when done affectionately among friends or family is usually OK. Someone you know and trust is not going to do something to hurt you and you know they are just joking around. When it's from someone you don't know, it just hurts and comes across as rude or hostile.
I see abacaxi was defending his friend--that in itself is honorable.
posted on October 13, 2000 12:37:12 PM new
Magazine_guy -
Is this clear enough for you? Californis case law says this (and as eBay is in California, CA law applies to auctions held on its site):
California Civil Code Section 3344(a) provides: Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
By "damages" they are speaking of financial damages - usually what it would have cost to get a proper endorsement, plus the elgal fees for defending the name or image.
***********
I do not have a full law library, but the restriction on commercial use of any person's name and image is well documented. It is most often used to defend a celebrity name, but if your name, image, or voice is used without your consent, you have the right to make them stop.
Search at any search engine for "right of publicity" and you will see all kinds of legal sites.
The right of publicity is a narrow exception to the First Amendment that is designed to prevent consumer fraud by barring the use of a person's name, likeness, or image to falsely imply the endorsement of a product, the source or sponsorship of a product, or participation in the advertisement of the product. The right of publicity may legitimately be used to prevent one's name or likeness from being associated with the advertisement of a product. Even if there is no outright lie in the advertisements, the false implications harm the interests of the exploited celebrity and defraud the consumer.
See this court decision: "Paulsen, 299 N.Y.S.2d at 508." That pointed out that the right "does not invest a prominent person with the right to exploit financially every public use of name or picture. What is made actionable is the unauthorized use for advertising purposes in connection with the sale of a commodity."
See also Ann-Margret, supra, 498 F. Supp. at 406 (the right of publicity does not invest a prominent person with the right to exploit financially every public use of his or her name or picture; the right of publicity only applies to advertising); Parks, supra, 76 F. Supp. 2d at 777 (same). Current Audio, Inc. v. RCA Corp., 337 N.Y.S.2d 949 (NY App. 1972) (the right of publicity is limited and applies only to the unauthorized use of a name or picture for advertising purposes in connection with the sale of a commodity). Even White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), which is widely regarded as the most expansive "right of publicity" case, admits that the right should be limited to use in advertisements.
posted on October 13, 2000 01:00:41 PM new
You're to be commended, abacaxi, for your forbearance and well-articulated posts in this thread, all of the reason of which I suspect will fall on mostly deaf ears.
mzalez, although abacaxi and I may agree on certain issues and appreciate each other's interest in showing BS for what it is, I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss her patient attempt to explain my post to you as a manifestation of "friendship". I would not hesitate for a moment to nail her to the floor if I thought she was out of line in her thinking, and I should hope she respects me enough to do me the same courtesy.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 13, 2000 01:02 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 03:00:54 PM new
Nice work, abacaxi ...helps to clarify things a bit. Still leaves open the question of when the mention of a celebrity's name constitutes "use" of it to sell a product as opposed to it being mentioned as a reference or apt discription. This is further muddied if one uses a phrase like "Selena fan" which, although it relies on her name, is an entirely different thing from Selena herself and differs from a phrase like "Selena beads" which might imply an official sanction or brand.
Perhaps it boils down to how prominently the celebrity is featured and/or if an official connection is implied (your sixth paragraph seems to indicate that a large consideration is whether the use of the name/likeness is intended to suggest a relationship that doesn't, in fact, exist). One could argue that there's a big difference between the blatant use of someone's name or likeness to attract attention, or sneakily worded copy that hints at an official connection and the mere mention of a name in a reasonable reference.
If mzalez uses a phrase like "Selena would have loved these", I can see how that might stretch to be construed as an endorsement. Maybe a better choice would be "Selena fans who know of the white rose connection will love these".
Anyway, that's my HO, for what little it's worth.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
posted on October 13, 2000 04:20:14 PM new
Thanks, abacaxi, for the source.
Here's a relevant subsection:
****
e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness
in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material
containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid
advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not
the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or
with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent
is required under subdivision (a).
****
Lots of exceptions, as well, dealing with news media, magazines, and the like, that I won't post here.
Steve
[ edited by magazine_guy on Oct 13, 2000 04:23 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2000 04:57:44 PM new
Hi, first of all the name "Selena" is a trademark. In other words, it is someone's property. I don't think you can use it to promote your item without the copyright owner's permission. Whether or not it is an effective marketing technique is another matter. (Perhaps it is more effective because other sellers don't use inappropriate keywords.)
Regarding the appeal, you may not hear back from Selena and relist the item. At that point, eBay's liability has ended. YOURS has not, and you may find yourself in a lawsuit with Selena's estate.
If you really honestly want to demonstrate that you are not using Selena's name to sell your product, relist it without any mention of the trademarked name and let the customers decide if it is related. This should take care of the question, "How is using her name considered promotional?"
Magazine guy, I think what you mentioned constitutes "fair use." Yes, you may mention "Marilyn Monroe on the cover." Of course, you can not say "Marilyn endorses this product."
Mzales, I just want to offer a personal opinion. The idea of using Selena's image or name, beloved by many, to hawk your warez on eBay, is just plain wrong. You are prostituting her name for your own profit, using what you call a "marketing angle." I have always respected your posts, and I hope you decide to take the high road on this one and avoid trademark infringement and keyword spamming. Good luck.
posted on October 13, 2000 05:15:32 PM new
HCQ -
I think we have had a few spats ... I don't recall what the issue was.
Cathemmer -
"Still leaves open the question of when the mention of a celebrity's name constitutes "use" of it to sell a product as opposed to it being mentioned as a reference or apt discription."
And that quesiton is usually EXPENSIVELY, decided by a jury.
posted on October 13, 2000 07:23:12 PM newabacaxi - I think we probably have had, but I can't remember 'em. My point in my earlier post was that, if by any stretch it could at all be construed that you were rushing to my defense, it wasn't because we're best buds. (My guess is that your intent was to smooth mzalez's ruffled feathers, not back me up.) If you think I'm wrong, you say so without resorting to ad hominem remarks. And I respect you for that.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:05:25 PM new
abacaxi, thanks for putting up that section of California Civil Code. That is pretty clear cut. Does that apply to people in California only, or to all that post on eBay no matter who they are?
twinsoft, I still don't see how I'm guilty of inappropriate keyword spamming, although I understand the part about 'Selena' being a trademark. That reminds me of the incident where Ivana Trump sued a lipstick manufacturer because they had named one of their colors 'Ivana' (I don't know how that case turned out). My daughter will get a kick when she is old enough to understand she has a trademarked name.
Yeah, I doubt I'll get an answer to my email to Selena's estate--I haven't heard from them and won't be holding my breath waiting for a reply (although that would be really neat). I don't think they'll bother wasting their time on a minnow. I'm not worried about legal action from them...they've canned my auction so their little problem is gone.
Your advice is well taken. I don't think I'm going to be able to use 'Selena' in my auction...even though I would like to use it in the phrase to 'Fans of Selena'--I still don't think that is morally wrong. Someone mentioned earlier a hassle factor I don't care to get tangled up in. Thanks for your kind comments and wishes.
Well, good news anyway. A bunch of people emailed me after the cancellation and for now I've sold almost all the necklaces. If I can get any more, I think I'll use something like "The White Rose - Queen of Tejano". That should get it to the Selena fans. I decided not to use 'Selina', because I hear once you have an auction VeROed, eBay will watch you like a hawk for awhile...and probably that would be just asking for more trouble.
I appreciate y'all's input...you have really helped me with brainstorming out a solution. You've also taught me important information that will be very useful for the future. If I ever hear from eBay or Q-Productions on this, I'll post an update.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:41:37 PM new
"riding the coattails of profitability."? GIVE ME A BREAK! Ebay is bending over backwards here to keep from getting sued, that is all that is going on. I'd just look at it this way. If so-and-so's estate is that tight then why the heck would you ever want anything to do with the stuff anyhow? I guess everybody and their big brother is watching Ebay to make sure they don't lose a nickel. Just rediculous.
posted on October 13, 2000 08:50:55 PM new
skyscout, Q-Productions, the family company of Selena is well known for tight control. Looking back, I should have seen my auction cancellation coming. I think they are sooo tight, sometimes they strangle themselves.
I wonder if at some tight control companies...do they have a 'eBay watchdog'...someone who sits and looks at auctions all day, or maybe a web bot, looking for violators...
posted on October 13, 2000 09:38:42 PM new
Just speculation on my part, abacaxi, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that such issues are "usually EXPENSIVELY decided by a jury". From a practical standpoint, I would guess that would depend more on scale and degree of the perceived infraction.
A national ad for "Selena beads" , with her picture emblazened at the top and hinting at a genuine endorsement is possibly likely to merit the prolonged attention of the copyright holder and win a court settlement. Selling a few items on an internet auction and mentioning that they might be of interest to Selena fans is unlikely, aside from being caught in the Vero net, to attract more than a threatening form letter, meant to intimidate, from the lawyer on retainer. It's not worth the trouble & it could be tough to convince a jury that any fraud or undue use of the celebrity's name was intended. Does anyone really KNOW of a small seller with a legal item who has actually been sued by a large Vero member ?
twinsoft I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm not sure that being a trademark affords much, if any, more protection to a celebrity's name (see mag-guy's posts just before yours & previously). Much seems to depend on the degree to which the name, etc. is used to promote something. Just being a trademark doesn't remove it from relevant mention, even in a "commercial" setting (again, note ads that make comparisons to their competition), and, again, a "Selena fan" is a thing distinct and removed from Selena herself.
mzalez If it were me, I wouldn't shrink from using a carefully worded mention such as "Selena fan" or noting that white roses were favored at Selena concerts, but you have to be the one to decide to how much grief you might be exposing yourself. Don't expect an answer from the Selena people & you probably won't get one from ebay even if you go through the "counter Vero" steps. During the Jeff Buckley nonsense I ran a couple of satirical auctions (wasn't the only one to do so). The first was yanked by the Buckley Vero's & though I jumped through all the hoops to have it reinstated, ebay never put it back up as it would seem they are required to do under the same rules that they followed to pull it. The second, however, was left alone. Whether this was due to the ruckus being raised about that particular Vero member at the time, or whether it was because I fought back, I don't know. Make of all this what you will, and do what you think will work best in your situation. Good luck.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
posted on October 13, 2000 11:04:13 PM new
cathammer, if I knew then what I know now, I would have used the carefully worded 'Selena fan' approach since that is who I was targeting. I am afraid to do it now, because--and this is what I've heard--that once you've been VeROed, you are under eBay's microscope for awhile. It would seem they are waiting with baited breath for you do defy their orders. Does anyone know if this is true?
How did you make a satirical ad? When they pulled your satirical ad, did you have a previously VeROed Jeff Buckley auction? That sounds fascinating. Forgive me for not knowing, but who is Jeff Buckley anyway?
This is off the Selena track, but I've heard of artists that open their intellectual property to their fans. The most well known case is The Grateful Dead. They even have a basketball team named after them in Lithuania. I think it's a brilliant marketing move on their part. I'm grateful to the Grateful Dead, because I am able to sell items to Dead Heads no problem.
Can anyone name any other 'open' artists? There must be a surge of them with the Mapster thing going on.
posted on October 14, 2000 07:45:46 AM new
mzalez -
California law applies to EBAY, because that is what their TOS says, and tyhat is where their company is located. Most states have suimilar laws.
It's easy for a company to do a daily or weekly search on a keyword and have a low-level flunky check out the auctions. And if they have had you whacked once, they would be likely to keep an eye on your auctions for a while.
posted on October 14, 2000 11:45:28 AM new
This is probably waaaaay too simplistic, but:
If Selena fans associate her with "white rose" and are likely to want any "white rose" item, regardless of whether it is actually something she owned or touched, wouldn't they already be doing a search for "white rose" and find the item?
