4 ms·

Per Betteridge's law, no.

umeshunni 2y ago
A rare exception here: > A Target spokesperson confirmed to Modern Retail that the company that runs the Bullseye Deals account does buy salvage merchandise from Target and sells it. > Target doesn’t control this Bullseye Deals inventory, but it is aware that its reverse logistics partner is doing this.
- antiterra 2y ago
  So, it’s still no. They sell to a third-party company and forget about it.
  - LeifCarrotson 2y ago
    What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"? I understand there's a legal distinction, but there's so little practical difference that you'd be hard pressed to explain the distinction to a layperson. Unless maybe you got hurt by a defective item and tried to sue Target for damages. I assume this scheme is intended to insulate Target from that possibility, their lawyers would argue that you'd have to sue Bullseye Deals, LLC which has negligible assets, not their multi-billion-dollar corporation..
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      unless they are owned by the same parent, every possible difference is present. You seem to be assuming that target owns bullseye/liquidity services
    - toast0 2y ago
      > What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"? The article doesn't make any claims about exclusivity for target selling or this company buying. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I don't think the trademark claim is very strong either. Target's logo is a red circle surrounded by a white/transparent circle, surrounded by another red circle (bullseye). Their trademark application says "The mark consists of concentric circles representing a target or bullseye design." This seller's logo is a silhouette of white bull in a red circle. There's some similar elements, but I don't think there's confusion. Target is affiliated with bullseyes, and uses bullseye in some of its trademarks, but the word bullseye by itself is not a trademark of Target.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  How is this an exception? Bullseye Deals is an independent company, and there is a middleman (Liquidity Services, Inc) between them and Target. From the article: > Bullseye Deals technically falls into this latter category, though it is branded in a way that at least hints at it being associated with Target. Sources tell Modern Retail that all the listings are salvage merchandise from Target that’s been purchased by the reverse supply chain services company Liquidity Services, Inc. > A Target spokesperson confirmed to Modern Retail that the company that runs the Bullseye Deals account does buy salvage merchandise from Target and sells it. Liquidity Services, Inc. did not respond to a request for comment.
adolph 2y ago
I hadn't thought out the reasoning behind Betteridge before, the highlighted portion below rounds out the law's method of action. "Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: 'Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.' It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist . . . . It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

A rare exception here: > A Target spokesperson confirmed to Modern Retail that the company that runs the Bullseye Deals account does buy salvage merchandise from Target and sells it. > Target doesn’t control this Bullseye Deals inventory, but it is aware that its reverse logistics partner is doing this.

antiterra 2y ago
So, it’s still no. They sell to a third-party company and forget about it.
- LeifCarrotson 2y ago
  What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"? I understand there's a legal distinction, but there's so little practical difference that you'd be hard pressed to explain the distinction to a layperson. Unless maybe you got hurt by a defective item and tried to sue Target for damages. I assume this scheme is intended to insulate Target from that possibility, their lawyers would argue that you'd have to sue Bullseye Deals, LLC which has negligible assets, not their multi-billion-dollar corporation..
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    unless they are owned by the same parent, every possible difference is present. You seem to be assuming that target owns bullseye/liquidity services
  - toast0 2y ago
    > What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"? The article doesn't make any claims about exclusivity for target selling or this company buying. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I don't think the trademark claim is very strong either. Target's logo is a red circle surrounded by a white/transparent circle, surrounded by another red circle (bullseye). Their trademark application says "The mark consists of concentric circles representing a target or bullseye design." This seller's logo is a silhouette of white bull in a red circle. There's some similar elements, but I don't think there's confusion. Target is affiliated with bullseyes, and uses bullseye in some of its trademarks, but the word bullseye by itself is not a trademark of Target.
quickthrowman 2y ago
How is this an exception? Bullseye Deals is an independent company, and there is a middleman (Liquidity Services, Inc) between them and Target. From the article: > Bullseye Deals technically falls into this latter category, though it is branded in a way that at least hints at it being associated with Target. Sources tell Modern Retail that all the listings are salvage merchandise from Target that’s been purchased by the reverse supply chain services company Liquidity Services, Inc. > A Target spokesperson confirmed to Modern Retail that the company that runs the Bullseye Deals account does buy salvage merchandise from Target and sells it. Liquidity Services, Inc. did not respond to a request for comment.

adolph 2y ago

I hadn't thought out the reasoning behind Betteridge before, the highlighted portion below rounds out the law's method of action. "Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: 'Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.' It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist . . . . It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines