4 ms·

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

by ikeboy 9y ago

Steko 9y ago
No evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from
  - Steko 9y ago
    Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      >Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F. Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune. >one seller massively undercutting the rest As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  See paragraph 37 and the other ones around it in https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-complaint https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-compla... The court appeared to ignore the point there. Note that "customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products" do not appear in the complaint.
jmull 9y ago
Wait a sec... you cited this case. If it doesn't actually address your main point then why reference it? You're making pretty strong claims but are providing links to back it up that don't actually back it up. I don't see why anyone would take what you're saying seriously.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  It shows Apple making an IP claim containing false allegations. Like I said, the fact that they weren’t found to be legally liable for that is not relevant to the point I’m making, which is that they lied in an IP claim. Apple retracted the claim, as mentioned in the original complaint. They may have immunity under free speech doctrines for lying, but that doesn’t change the fact that they lied. To be clear, the court didn’t make a decision either way on whether Apple lied. I am saying that they lied, based on the fact that they filed a complaint without basis or with flimsy basis (reviews that were not tied to a seller), and that I know of several other instances of Apple doing the exact same thing, I know some people were considering a class action against Apple for this last year. It’s just really hard and expensive to go up against Apple or any large company in court, so they are getting away with it.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Given that immunity doctrine, there’s a really high bar to proving liability. There’s enough facts there to determine that Apple had no reasonable basis for the claim.

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

by ikeboy 9y ago

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

Steko 9y ago

No evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

ikeboy 9y ago
I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from
- Steko 9y ago
  Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    >Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F. Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune. >one seller massively undercutting the rest As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.
ikeboy 9y ago
See paragraph 37 and the other ones around it in https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-complaint https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-compla... The court appeared to ignore the point there. Note that "customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products" do not appear in the complaint.

jmull 9y ago

Wait a sec... you cited this case. If it doesn't actually address your main point then why reference it? You're making pretty strong claims but are providing links to back it up that don't actually back it up. I don't see why anyone would take what you're saying seriously.

ikeboy 9y ago
It shows Apple making an IP claim containing false allegations. Like I said, the fact that they weren’t found to be legally liable for that is not relevant to the point I’m making, which is that they lied in an IP claim. Apple retracted the claim, as mentioned in the original complaint. They may have immunity under free speech doctrines for lying, but that doesn’t change the fact that they lied. To be clear, the court didn’t make a decision either way on whether Apple lied. I am saying that they lied, based on the fact that they filed a complaint without basis or with flimsy basis (reviews that were not tied to a seller), and that I know of several other instances of Apple doing the exact same thing, I know some people were considering a class action against Apple for this last year. It’s just really hard and expensive to go up against Apple or any large company in court, so they are getting away with it.
ikeboy 9y ago
Given that immunity doctrine, there’s a really high bar to proving liability. There’s enough facts there to determine that Apple had no reasonable basis for the claim.