6 ms·

I though there are strict laws against counterfeiting? It isn't even slightly different, it has the chrome logo on it! With all the mishaps lately like sending

I though there are strict laws against counterfeiting? It isn't even slightly different, it has the chrome logo on it! With all the mishaps lately like sending out stones and bricks [1] instead of cameras I am worried this will carry over into other Amazon owned companies like Whole Foods. [1] https://fstoppers.com/gear/buyer-orders-6000-camera-amazon-sends-box-rocks-instead-225267 https://fstoppers.com/gear/buyer-orders-6000-camera-amazon-s...

apotheothesomai 9y ago
It's not straight-up counterfeiting, since they own up to not being Chromecast, but it may not survive legal action. It's a weak defense. Google may have already started legal action. The trademark infringement is certainly there. A lot depends on where it's made. Does Google have patents on the form factor in that country, either by treaties or by actually registering in the country? It can shut down the reselling by American companies at least. As for food, counterfeits are unnecessary. There are already store brands which offer mostly or entirely the same food stuffs but with a derivative name (like Miracast vs. Chromecast, or Crunchy Nuts vs. Grape Nuts) and knock-off packaging. There's also the bit where 3rd-party sellers don't exist in grocery stores.
- apotheothesomai 9y ago
  Oh man, you removed the line about Whole Foods, bummer.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  >"It's not straight-up counterfeiting, since they own up to not being Chromecast, [...]" I'm certain it doesn't work that way in the UK. Small suppliers get _all_ their product confiscated in raids by Trading Standards when they sell knock-off Nike, or whatever. Everyone knows it's knock-off (counterfeit, branded sports wear, like trainers and tracksuits). The sellers don't get let off for admitting it's fake; sometimes they go to prison, always they have goods confiscated. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8034060.Counterfeit_crackdown_seizes___30_000_of_goods/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8034060.Counterfe... This seems analogous to the Amazon situation. By rule of law Amazon warehouses should be shut by the police until all inventory that's counterfeit can be removed by Trading Standards. Presumably they lack resources to effectively police traders larger than market stalls.
  - GarrisonPrime 9y ago
    >By rule of law Amazon warehouses should be shut by the police until all inventory that's counterfeit can be removed by Trading Standards. And harm the economy? Fat chance. Perhaps their size isn't as massive there, but in the US Amazon is certainly "too big to fail" at this point.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      That of course is short-termism: the economy (sic) is harmed more by fake good of low quality. The problem is enough corporate financial profit benefits from it. I think if it were up to me I'd issue an ultimatum. Remove all counterfeit goods from your marketplace/supply chain or your warehouse in South Yorkshire is shutdown until the 3 people working in the local Trading Standards office can process the full inventory and confiscate counterfeit goods; that would include all goods in transit, eg by post, with an Amazon label or biking performed through Amazon. That would be lenient compared to how small "businesses" are treated. Then choose one warehouse to assess, do a raid, check compliance and act appropriately. Note, advertisement of counterfeits is non-compliance. That will definitely never happen this side of the greens getting in to power.
DanBC 9y ago
They say > Special note: > this isn't a Chromecast
- yorwba 9y ago
  I don't think that makes it legal, since they are still violating the trademark.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    The power of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion. If that logo's not fooling anyone, well, it's definitely not black and white.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  It's still counterfeit, a fake Rolex is still unlawful even when the seller and buyer know it's fake.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    Why is that? If both parties know what's going on, who is being harmed?
    - astura 9y ago
      It's trademark infringement because it has the Chromecast logo on it. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't be a problem. That's a big reason (but not the only reason) that fashion brands have their logo all over their products.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      As the sibling said, trade dress and marks are used, as is copying of the appearance - so there's torts there. There are usually wider issues of public safety that come along for the ride; tortuous malfeasants are prone to criminal actions - like goods that don't meet fire safety standards (or RF interference requirements, etc., but has the requisite marks), etc..
sparkie 9y ago
Most of the knock-offs come from China, and in China it's acceptable business to plagiarize, perhaps even encouraged if you're plagiarizing from non-Chinese companies. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loDBwp5ST0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loDBwp5ST0 They can get away with selling internationally either by selling directly from China, or just playing whack-a-mole. Often companies in the west will pop up to sell the products to domestic markets, and by the time the law comes chasing after them they've already disappeared. Usually the law isn't interested in what they are selling, but only bothers to chase after them when they don't pay their sales taxes.

apotheothesomai 9y ago

It's not straight-up counterfeiting, since they own up to not being Chromecast, but it may not survive legal action. It's a weak defense. Google may have already started legal action. The trademark infringement is certainly there. A lot depends on where it's made. Does Google have patents on the form factor in that country, either by treaties or by actually registering in the country? It can shut down the reselling by American companies at least. As for food, counterfeits are unnecessary. There are already store brands which offer mostly or entirely the same food stuffs but with a derivative name (like Miracast vs. Chromecast, or Crunchy Nuts vs. Grape Nuts) and knock-off packaging. There's also the bit where 3rd-party sellers don't exist in grocery stores.

apotheothesomai 9y ago
Oh man, you removed the line about Whole Foods, bummer.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>"It's not straight-up counterfeiting, since they own up to not being Chromecast, [...]" I'm certain it doesn't work that way in the UK. Small suppliers get _all_ their product confiscated in raids by Trading Standards when they sell knock-off Nike, or whatever. Everyone knows it's knock-off (counterfeit, branded sports wear, like trainers and tracksuits). The sellers don't get let off for admitting it's fake; sometimes they go to prison, always they have goods confiscated. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8034060.Counterfeit_crackdown_seizes___30_000_of_goods/ http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8034060.Counterfe... This seems analogous to the Amazon situation. By rule of law Amazon warehouses should be shut by the police until all inventory that's counterfeit can be removed by Trading Standards. Presumably they lack resources to effectively police traders larger than market stalls.
- GarrisonPrime 9y ago
  >By rule of law Amazon warehouses should be shut by the police until all inventory that's counterfeit can be removed by Trading Standards. And harm the economy? Fat chance. Perhaps their size isn't as massive there, but in the US Amazon is certainly "too big to fail" at this point.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    That of course is short-termism: the economy (sic) is harmed more by fake good of low quality. The problem is enough corporate financial profit benefits from it. I think if it were up to me I'd issue an ultimatum. Remove all counterfeit goods from your marketplace/supply chain or your warehouse in South Yorkshire is shutdown until the 3 people working in the local Trading Standards office can process the full inventory and confiscate counterfeit goods; that would include all goods in transit, eg by post, with an Amazon label or biking performed through Amazon. That would be lenient compared to how small "businesses" are treated. Then choose one warehouse to assess, do a raid, check compliance and act appropriately. Note, advertisement of counterfeits is non-compliance. That will definitely never happen this side of the greens getting in to power.

DanBC 9y ago

They say > Special note: > this isn't a Chromecast

yorwba 9y ago
I don't think that makes it legal, since they are still violating the trademark.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  The power of a trademark is to prevent consumer confusion. If that logo's not fooling anyone, well, it's definitely not black and white.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
It's still counterfeit, a fake Rolex is still unlawful even when the seller and buyer know it's fake.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  Why is that? If both parties know what's going on, who is being harmed?
  - astura 9y ago
    It's trademark infringement because it has the Chromecast logo on it. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't be a problem. That's a big reason (but not the only reason) that fashion brands have their logo all over their products.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    As the sibling said, trade dress and marks are used, as is copying of the appearance - so there's torts there. There are usually wider issues of public safety that come along for the ride; tortuous malfeasants are prone to criminal actions - like goods that don't meet fire safety standards (or RF interference requirements, etc., but has the requisite marks), etc..

sparkie 9y ago

Most of the knock-offs come from China, and in China it's acceptable business to plagiarize, perhaps even encouraged if you're plagiarizing from non-Chinese companies. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loDBwp5ST0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loDBwp5ST0 They can get away with selling internationally either by selling directly from China, or just playing whack-a-mole. Often companies in the west will pop up to sell the products to domestic markets, and by the time the law comes chasing after them they've already disappeared. Usually the law isn't interested in what they are selling, but only bothers to chase after them when they don't pay their sales taxes.