PDA

View Full Version : Bob Salomon, the Heliopan trademark, and ebay



Donald Hutton
15-Jan-2005, 22:33
I listed a couple of sundry items on Ebay this evening. I just received this email back from Ebay:

"Dear Donald M Hutton (donald_hutton@ameritech.net),

**PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR LISTING(S)**

We would like to let you know that we removed your listing:

3867700637 Nikon 52mm Circular Polarizer - Excellent
3867697565 B+W 77mm MRC Circular Polarizer - Excellent



because the intellectual property rights owner notified us, under penalty of perjury, that your listing or the item itself infringes their copyright, trademark, or other rights.

We have credited any associated fees to your account. We have also notified the bidders that the listing(s) was removed, and that they are not obligated to complete the transaction.

If you relist this or any other similar items on eBay, your account likely will be suspended.

If you believe your listing was ended in error, or have questions regarding the removal of this listing, please contact the intellectual property rights owner directly at:

H.P. Marketing Corp.
info@hpmarketingcorp.com

Pretty amusing that Bob thinks that HP own the intellectual property rights to B+W and Nikon - can't wait to see how little the "penalty for perjury" amounts to.....

I am astounded that any company thinks it is good policy to prevent people from selling their products second hand.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
15-Jan-2005, 22:50
Shows there is nothing intellectual going on at HP.

Isaac Crawford
15-Jan-2005, 22:52
Just out of curiosity, are you in Canada? I seem to recall him getting in a snit beacuse someone was trying to "import" a Heliopan filter. Now that I think about it, Schneider USA is the one that *might* hold those sorts of rights on B+W filters, what's he got to do with either of the companies you listed? I'd reccomend getting in touch with Bob and see what's going on... I agree that he probably doesn't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to reselling used merchandise, after all, you probably didn't sign any sort of contract or even look over a license agreement when you bought the thing...

Isaac

Glenn Kroeger
15-Jan-2005, 22:55
Could this be spam? I received an email tonight suggesting my account was suspended. Logging directly onto Ebay confirmed that no such thing was true!

Donald Hutton
15-Jan-2005, 22:59
I'm in the USA. I think that common courtesy would be that Bob should contact me, although I have noticed in the past from his public postings that courtesy/tact and BS do not often meet. My immediate response is simply to vote with my wallet - sell every Rodenstock lens I own, every heliopan filter and any other HP Marketing product; let as many people as possible know of my experience: the sense, the courtesy and the value (i.e. lack of it of owning anything where the trademark owner feels that you should never be allowed to sell it), and leave it that. Their business must be really tanking to have employees spend their time monitoring ebay listings on a Saturday night and having them removed under false pretence...

Philippe Bedfert
15-Jan-2005, 23:15
Dear Don,

You could try to place the auction in an other eBay, for instance eBay UK or Australia or France. As the legislation are quite different from US, I don't think you could be prosecuted.

Brian Ellis
15-Jan-2005, 23:27
The "penalties of perjury" stuff is total nonsense. Whether you violate copyright lor tradmark laws is a question of law. Perjury applies to statements of fact made under oath, not questions of law. Not to mention the fact that neither e bay nor HP Marketing has the power to cause you to say anything under oath. Finally, while I'm not a copyright lawyer the idea that you violated anyone's trademark or copyright by using the brand name of items you own when you sell them seems totally ridiculous. You own the filters, you're entitled to sell them, in order to sell them you have to be able to tell people what brand they are. I'd suspect some sort of hoax here. Was your listing in fact pulled?

Donald Hutton
15-Jan-2005, 23:40
The listing was in fact pulled... The point is that Ebay pulls the listing on the undertaking that the complaining party has a valid complaint (hence the perjury line) and then throws the onus of sorting that out back on me. Clearly, HP marketing has no intellectual property rights to Nikon, so there must be some sort of mistake, but I have to send off begging emails to Bob Salomon. I feel strongly that if anyone has to take some action, it should be him apologizing for an clear mistake and a pathetic business practice (apparently, HP Marketing regularly have people's listings removed if they mention the word Heliopan - which mine did not, but I am trying to sell some other Heliopan filters I own as I have moved to a Lee filter system). I'm just really frstrated that in a community of largely extremely likeable and helpful folks there are extremely obstructive individuals out there.

Paddy Quinn
15-Jan-2005, 23:52
I believe Solomon did this in the past when a Heliopan filter originally purchased from the US was offered for sale on ebay USA by a Canadian seller. - there was a series of threads about it either on here or on photo.net. I have heard of several others, but the offended parties didn't make as much noise.


http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/496683.html (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/496683.html)


http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0063E3 (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0063E3)

HP Marketing apparently was the US trademark holder for Heliopan. Solomon erroneously believed that trademark law required a vigorous defence of any such infringement on the Heliopan trademark at the risk of losing the trademark.

Solomon's and HP's stance was completely contradicted elsewhere and stated as incorrect and disproportionate in a response by a law professor who was a specialist in trademark law. In fact HP's response appeared to nothing more than their usual heavy and high handed behaviour and also displayed what appeared to be either very bad legal advice or clear ignorance of the law concerned.

Don I would suggest also posting this complaint on photo.net if the facts are correct and you are "merely" an individual (as opposed to a store) selling personal items

Bear in mind with ebay - they basically do what they want. They have stated in the past that if law enforcement were to call the looking for full details of any sales or member records they would happily provide them - no warrants or such - just a call from "legitimate" law enforcement.

David Luttmann
15-Jan-2005, 23:57
If this is indeed the manner in which HP treats people selling an item, which by the way IS within their legal right, than indeed we can do more harm by simply spreading the word everywhere possible. Maybe thousands of people NOT buying their products, and them knowing why, may change this heavy handed, ill-informed public relations approach.

But for me it's simple. ...never will I buy another HP product.....EVER.

Alan Davenport
16-Jan-2005, 01:59
Betcha Bob will stay far away from this thread...

Bob Salomon
16-Jan-2005, 03:40
Afraid the OP is not quite relating the facts the that resulted in the auction being stopped.

The auction was stopped because he was NOT selling a Heliopan item but the listing appeared when doing a search for Heliopan.

There is no reason why he can not sell his Nikon filter. He just can't use the Heliopan name in his listing to do so.

The following is directly from Ebay's selling policies.

"The inclusion of words that are simply listed to promote your other items to your other eBay items. For example, it would not be permissible to state "Please view my other eBay listings for Beanie Babies, vintage Barbie's, Rolex watches, and Chanel scarves." It would be acceptable to state, "Please view my other eBay listings."

We did not stop your auction. Ebay did after reviewing your auction.

Armin Seeholzer
16-Jan-2005, 04:47
But sorry Bob for me from the land of William Tell, now in my opinion you are a sick person if you have time for such a monitoring!
And I'm sure you will loose many possible costumer for the future if you do things like this!
I'm so very sorry for you Bob!!!
Its a long way to get a good reputation but a very short to loose it!
You really sould change your mind and do the right action to stay in bussines, good luck!

Dave Moeller
16-Jan-2005, 05:14
I'd be interested in learning the specifics of this particular issue (I don't think we know all of the facts yet; specifically, I don't believe we know the exact trangression that eBay used as a justification for closing the auction). I'm not ready to castigate Bob, given that his company is the rightful owner of the trademark for Heliopan in the U.S. and he has both the right and the duty to protect that trademark. Given the laws of the U.S. as they stand today, Bob has to spend time and/or hire others to spend time looking for abuses of his trademark or he can lose it (like "Kleenex").

If the listing mentioned Heliopan in a way that infringed Bob's trademark, then legally he's done the right thing, and from a business stand point he's done what he must do.

Without all of the facts, I'm not in a position to pass any form of judgement on Bob's actions in this case. I suspect that most posters to this thread are in the same boat.

I do, however, believe that we have enough facts at hand to pass a little judgement on eBay. Reading the email that Don received, it looks like his auction was ended without a notation of the specific transgression that had been claimed. The email mentions the general transgression ("trademark infringement") but does not say what it was in the ad that infringed on the trademark. This has become more and more the way eBay does business...they have a problem and they punt not only the solution to the problem but also the investigation of the problem back to their customers. This is just one more sign of their ever-growing hubris given their monopoly status.

Just for the record: I don't know Bob Salomon. I've never done business with him, I have never (to the best of my knowledge) purchased any products that he represents, and I've never had any contact with him. I do buy and sell on eBay.

Tom Westbrook
16-Jan-2005, 05:33
So, problem solved, Don. You post the item again as a new listing, being sure to omit trade names that don't apply to the item being sold.

Bob Salomon
16-Jan-2005, 06:01
Tom,

Thanks for your comment but the OP knew the answer earlier.

This was sent to him to answer his question as to why:

User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:13:29 -0500
Subject: Re: VeRO NOTICE: eBay Listing(s) Removed - VeRO Program
From: Bob Salomon <bobsalomon@mindspring.com>
To: Donald Hutton <donald_hutton@ameritech.net>
Message-ID: <BE0F9A69.E3C5%bobsalomon@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <MHBBJNPOEGKLJEDLJKHEKEPCCMAA.donald_hutton@ameritech.net>
X-Priority: 1
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit



You were offering to sell items that were not made by Heliopan but used the Heliopan name in your listings."

It seems that after receiving the answer to his question he then posted the above.

Tom Westbrook
16-Jan-2005, 07:11
Well, Bob, Don's original post was made about four hours prior to your reply (posting times are all Pacific Time on the forum). Yours was dataed Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:13:29 EST , his post 2005-01-16 00:33 EST.

Just reinforces my opinion that people ought to try to resolve these sorts of disputes directly witht the other party first before posting things here.

Donald Hutton
16-Jan-2005, 07:16
Bob

That is ridiculous - you should check a little more. My listing simply suggested that buyers should check my other listings for Heliopan and B+W filters I am selling: how on earth can you have an issue with that???

Ted Harris
16-Jan-2005, 07:57
Don,

You missed the whole point. It is not Bob's or HP Marketing's policy, it is eBays's. Read his earlier post carefully. I have had the same thing happen tome. You (I will assume innocently) mentioned yuo were selling Helipoan filters and the use of the word got caught in an eBay filter. They do this to discourage the folks who randomly use a string of brand name to attract folks to their auctions .... you have seen the "not Rolex, not Omega, not IWC, watch ads for example. Or the guy that is selling el schlocko camera and ujust runs a random sstring of Leica, Linhof, Rollei, Contax, Canon, Nikon throuh his listing so that those searching for keyword s will pick it up.

It's eBay you need to be mad at not HP. Then again the general policy makes sense even though some innocent stuff gets caught once in a while.

Glenn Kroeger
16-Jan-2005, 08:03
Ebay has the policy, HP owns the trademark. End of story.

I hope Ebay continues to vigorously enforce this policy. I am tired of searching on a brand name and getting a long list of stuff I am not interested in. If somebody searches on Heliopan, they want Heliopan!

Donald Hutton
16-Jan-2005, 08:09
Ted

I did miss that point initially - however, according to Ebay, for any action to be taken, the complaining party actually has to send them a fax with the item number, so while my listing did contravene their listing policy (which I can tell you is very difficult to wade through), HP Marketing actually complained in writing for the action to be taken. I think that protecting your intellecutal property by frustrating and harassing your existing customers makes no business sense. I understand my mistake completely but will still be voting with my wallet.

Alec Jones
16-Jan-2005, 08:21
Give it up, Don. You were wrong. Now, you're acting like a child. Just follow the rules. Obviously you have never been in business, and your arguments are silly.

David A. Goldfarb
16-Jan-2005, 08:30
Truth be told, I find it pretty annoying when people add unrelated brand names to their items so that they show up on more searches, like "No-name tripod! Great for Sinar, Toyo, Linhof, Ebony, Wisner, Arca-Swiss, or Deardorff!" Don's example isn't quite that bad, and sometimes Bob can seem a little overly zealous, but I can see the point.

Witold Grabiec
16-Jan-2005, 08:40
Bob Salomon is one of those double standard cases. I think most will agree that he contributed to this forum immensly with the technical knowledge of the products he sells (unfortunately only those). At the same time he uses every opportunity to promote as much as he can. I always thought that advertising was not allowed, not on this forum, not on the other. Most everytime I read his posts, I get turned off in the end, because it always feels like the ONLY reason he posts is to promote (not to share).

This on going HP's moaning about Ebay trademark etc. violations becomes more and more annoying. Given the statements above, I see no reason for HP to push for these kind of AUCTIONS being pulled off. My uderstanding is, that if someone attempted to sell a NEW Heliopan on US market, then it violates HP exclusivity (what a joke this is by the way), provided it is a BULK type sale. I tend to think a single item for sale, even if new, still would not violate anything.

HP has accted illogically on these matters in the past. I think it will continue this ill advised approach to treating the good citizens as frauds. I don't own any Heliopans, I think there is good (or better) substitues available. If not I'll do without, or get some on Ebay (hopefully before they get pulled off).

Donald Hutton
16-Jan-2005, 09:01
Alec

Quite clear to me I was wrong. Maybe my arguments are silly to you - I'm voicing my opinions about them though. You haven't actually seen my CV so I suggest you keep your own opinions on that to yourself.

Henry Ambrose
16-Jan-2005, 09:30
Witold wrote:
"This on going HP's moaning about Ebay trademark etc. violations becomes more and more annoying. Given the statements above, I see no reason for HP to push for these kind of AUCTIONS being pulled off. "

Its about protecting their trademark. If it could be shown that they don't make an effort to protect their property then it could be argued that they have abandoned the trademark. Subsequently, when someone seriously abuses the trademark the trademark holder may have a diminished case to make against the abuser.

Just as if you let people steal your pictures without objecting then sued someone to make them stop. One possible response could be that you had let others use the pictures for free and without restriction, so they could do the same.

It all seems ugly, I agree, but let's not blame HP for properly minding their business.

Ted Harris
16-Jan-2005, 09:55
To follow on henry's staement ..... and not to castigate Bob. If anyone here is an intellectual property/trademark.copyright lawyer please speak up but I am willing to bet that none of the things that HP/Bob is doing they are doing on their own, that is I would bet they are doing it on advisce of counsel. I know enough about these sorts of things to be dangerous but do know that it is a tricky area where you can lose your business when you don't vigerously protect it.

paulr
16-Jan-2005, 10:41
It was actually Bob's aggressive territorial behavior that prompted me to spend my money on Schneider lenses.

Back when I was getting ready to spend more money than I'd ever seen, I did as much research as possible, including talking to the tech reps from the major manufacturers. The Schneider rep was friendly and went out of his way to educate me about optics. I had to press him for why he thought Schneider was better; his claims were modest and believable. Bob, on the other hand, came off as a salesman, making huge claims for Rodenstock's superiority, and dismissing everyone else. The short of it is, he lost my trust.

I'm now convinced that I would have been every bit as happy with the technical performance of Rodenstock lenses, but I feel better all around having purchased from people who go out of their way to respect my intelligence and to see me as more than a walking dollar sign.

Stories like this ebay account reconfirm my decision. I'm as annoyed by "subject spamming" as anyone else, but this doesn't sound like a case of that. And it does raise a lot of questions if a company rep is spending his time hassling people selling gear on ebay. No one here is dumb enough to think it's for trademark protection. I think the real motives are pretty obvious.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, Bob--just giving you some honest feedback. You should know how your behavior actually influences people's opinions.

Randy_5067
16-Jan-2005, 11:33
By "copyright/trademark" infringement for listing additional items to be sold, does that mean that I can't mention my Chevrolet ad along with my junk camera items? And if you can't use their name in ads for sale, do you have to keep then forever as family heirlooms, simply because you can't tell anybody what you are selling?

Alec Jones
16-Jan-2005, 14:15
Don, some dumb people are smart enough to close their mouth when they find out they're wrong. Others, like you, keep theirs open and erase all doubt about their knowledge, vel non. You have no common sense. And, since you started this by asking the question, I'm giving you my opinion. If you don't like the heat, .......

Donald Hutton
16-Jan-2005, 14:45
Alec...

I have no problem with your opinion being expressed here as to how stupid or lacking in common sense I may be (although that may not be within the guidelines for posting on this forum, but you are obviously clever enough to know that). What I suggested is that as you actually have no idea of my business experience, you should not be expressing opinions about it.

Jon_2416
17-Jan-2005, 01:29
Yep. Saloman and his ilk are some of the worst things to happen to the LF community. Please Bob, please, retire quietly and let someone competent and less antagonistic in your place.

With such pathetic promotion of brands like Linhof, one wouldn't think he would have time to harass ebayers trying to sell used equipment.

I don't buy Heliopan ( or many of the brands HP deals in) in the US. I buy directly from Europe--and unlike what Bob will spew, customs hasn't stopped a single item--they have more important things to look for.

Please do your best to cut HP right out of the loop--the LF community deserves company reps that actually have some ethics.

Feel free to email me for contacts in Europe. You won't have to support HP ever again.

Thilo Schmid
17-Jan-2005, 05:53
I am surprised that some photographers do not seem to value trademarks. A trademark is similar to a copyright. It is as well a protection of an intellectual property. What would you say, if someone advertises his photographs with your name?

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 10:11
Thilo,

People on the secondard art market sell my images all the time. Say they bought a b&w print many years ago and now are trying to sell it. They post an ad that says I have a Kirk Gittings image for sale blah blah for so much. They have the right to do that. They do not have the right to reproduce it and that is where copyright comes in. And this is not any different as far as I can tell than what Don did.

Ryan McIntosh
17-Jan-2005, 10:40
Kirk,

Actually, if I owned one of your photographs, I would have the right to reproduce the image if the purpose is strictly for advertising that I have the item for sale. This is no different than Kmart showing an NFL licensed jersey in a sunday advertising flyer.

Ryan

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 10:42
" this is not any different as far as I can tell than what Don did"

In your case someone is selling an item with your name on it.

In Don's case he was listing an item for sale and using the Heliopan name in the sale when there was no Heliopan item offered in that sale.

Another user of Ebay yesterday listed a "generic" filter for sale in a Helipan box. When we looked at the image of the filter/box combination it was obvious that this was not a Helipan box.

We questioned how he knew it was a Heliopan item and the response was that it was actually another manufacturer's box. He changed or cancelled the ad on his own.

Once again no one stopped Don from selling his filter. He was stopped from listing Heliopan in his ad for that filter.

Mark Sawyer
17-Jan-2005, 10:56
Well, I don't think I'd buy anything from Bob *or* Don until I found out just where they stand on Olivier Meriel's burning and dodging techniques...

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 11:13
Bob

Let me just clarify exactly what happened - I listed several items - some Heliopan filters and some other filters too. With my ad for a Nikon circular polarizer, I had a line at the bottom of the ad saying "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters". Note - this was not in the listing line, just right at the bottom of my description. It is now obvious to me that this reference goes against an Ebay selling policy guideline, which I, at the time, did not know about (in fact depsite Bob's kind reference to the specific guideline, I still cannot locate it in the mire of guidelines). I understand that they may have reason to have this policy - it is afterall, their business and their users are obliged to do whatever they say. However, my auction was cancelled on the complaint in writing of HP Marketing, that this line in my auction infringed their trademark. Please note, that Ebay informed me that for them to cancel an auction on this basis, they require a written complaint from the trademark owner stating the specific listing number etc. What I do not understand, Bob, is why HP Marketing in this case, utilize Ebay's policy (it's not law afterall, just an Ebay condition) to enforce this sort of thing? Do you really believe that I am ruining your business? My listing for your Heliopan filters actually sings their praises, but you act in an obstructive fashion for what reason? Incidentally, when sending out emails to your customers, you should consider a salutation; it's not only good manners, but I hear that it's good business practice too.

As for "burning and dodging" it's right in the front of my mind at present, but I shall not mention the context or subject for fear of contravening any other guidelines this week...

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 11:48
Ryan you are absolutely right.

Bob I think I understand your point, but in all honesty I think you are losing the propaganda war here. I don't see how this issue in the used market is hurting you. If the seller is misrepresenting something he will get called on it by the buyer. By you getting involved in this it appears just overbearing. You have great products and you make insightful and useful contributions on this forum but I can't see that this line of inquirey benefits you.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 12:05
"What I do not understand, Bob, is why HP Marketing in this case, utilize Ebay's policy (it's not law afterall, just an Ebay condition) to enforce this sort of thing? "

Because some people were/are violating or attempting to violate our Trademark and this makes us enforce every violation that we find. We can not selectively try to enforce violations.

In one case an individual on 100% medicare was selling product new after importing them improperly and then operating as a store.

In this case he was not reporting the income to Medicare or IRS or the state he was in. Nor was he collecting sales tax on sales within his state. However he was competing with legitimate stores with rents to pay, employees to pay, families to feed, insurance to pay, taxes to pay, registration and license fees to pay.

His activities led to our being assigned the Trademark and our registering the Trademark and our enforcing the Trademark. And if it is not enforced we can lose the right to enforce it.

At the moment their are about four dozen ads on Ebay for Heliopan items in the USA so there is no reason why you can't also sell them. The enforcement comes in if you are trying to export them to the USA on Ebay, if you are an unauthorized dealer trying to sell new Heliopan items. If you are not a dealer trying to sell Heliopan items as new when they were not sold directly to you by us (in other words you bought them from a store and are now re-selling them as new) and if you did what you did, list Heliopan in an ad for something else.

Sorry for the inconvenience but we were following the rules as posted on Ebay under Policies: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/hub.html?fromFeature=My%20eBay&ssPageName=f:f:US (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/hub.html?fromFeature=My%20eBay&ssPageName=f:f:US) then under "Rules for Sellers"

These are Ebay's rules for selling items on their site. Unfortunately many or most listers do not seem to be familiar with them. If they were these kinds of misunderstandings/problems would disappear.

We are not accusing you of knowingly violating or trying to circumvent policy. You just fell into a violation.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 12:07
"Bob I think I understand your point, but in all honesty I think you are losing the propaganda war here. I don't see how this issue in the used market is hurting you. If the seller is misrepresenting something he will get called on it by the buyer."

What you seem to have missed is that this is not because he was selling a Heliopan item. We did not stop his selling his Heliopan filter.

We stopped him using the Heliopan name in a listing for a non Heliopan item.

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 12:18
Bob

By having my listing removed, you were not in fact protecting your trademark, you were helping Ebay enforce their listing poilicies. I did not legally violate your trademark: I violated an Ebay listing policy, so do not attempt to imply that I was violating your trademark in any way and that your actions were intended to defend you trademark.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 12:30
Bob,

I've read this whole darn thread, and I still don't get it.

Because some people were/are violating or attempting to violate our Trademark and this makes us enforce every violation that we find. We can not selectively try to enforce violations.

OK, I understand this, but...

These are Ebay's rules for selling items on their site. Unfortunately many or most listers do not seem to be familiar with them. If they were these kinds of misunderstandings/problems would disappear.

We are not accusing you of knowingly violating or trying to circumvent policy. You just fell into a violation.

So, what are you enforcing here, your Heliopan trademark or eBay's keyword spamming policy? Seriously, you state above the reason behind all this is to enforce any, and all, violations of your Heliopan trademark. However, Don's eBay listing did not violate your trademark in any way, shape or form. He was not attempting to sell a new, "gray market" Heliopan filter, he was not selling to the US market from another country, nor was he attempting to sell a counterfeit Heliopan filter. So, exactly how does, "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters" violate your Heliopan trademark (hint, it deosn't)?

What you have enforced is eBay's policy against keyword spamming. This policy is designed to prevent sellers from putting a bunch of other brand names, terms or keywords in their listings to fool eBay's search function. I have seen many auctions where sellers will hide a list of keywords (sometimes several hundred) by using tiny white text on a white background, just for the sole purpose of getting search function hits. While technically, Don's listing may violate eBay's keyword spamming policy, it is a VERY minor infraction compared to true and deliberate keyword spamming. So, eBay pulled his listing for violating their policy, not any infringement of your Heliopan trademark.

I hope eBay is paying you for you time. In this particular case, you did absolutely nothing to protect your Heliopan trademark, and seem to have alienated one past customer and some possible future customers in the process. But, at least you saved eBay from the embarrassment of an extremely minor and inconsequential violation of their keyword spamming policy. Seriously Bob, I can understand a staunch defense of your legal rights, but don't you think you went a bit overboard here?

Kerry

S. Wang
17-Jan-2005, 12:58
"In this case he was not reporting the income to Medicare or IRS or the state he was in. Nor was he collecting sales tax on sales within his state. However he was competing with legitimate stores with rents to pay, employees to pay, families to feed, insurance to pay, taxes to pay, registration and license fees to pay. "

Bob, are you an IRS's Revenue Agent to policy on E*bay?

Thilo Schmid
17-Jan-2005, 13:00
Kirk,

I think there is nothing wrong if someone sells your pictures as long as he does not sell unauthorized copies of your work. But what would you say, if someone - not Sherrie Levine - sells his own pictures and writes in the description "after Kirk Gittings XYZ" ? It might be less objectionable if he writes "I also sell pictures from Kirk Gettings", but this does not make a big difference to me . I cannot believe that you don't mind, if someone searches for "Kirk Gettings" at ebay and hits a Familiy Album Snapshot.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 13:13
"Bob, are you an IRS's Revenue Agent to policy on E*bay?"

No. we were making someone who was effecting our dealer's business and our business play by the rules.

How would you like to have to match prices in your business with someone who pays no city, state, county or federal taxes or license fees or registration fees or rent or insurance and at the same time is drawing 100% disability payments from the taxes that you pay?

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 13:24
I am effecting your and your dealer's business by my actions???!! Please explain



I pay taxes; I am not a dealer - I am a private individual selling a few items second hand which I no longer require; which I purchased new in the US from a Heliopan US dealer.



The irony of this all is that I was selling these bits and pieces I no longer use to raise some money to upgrade my 10 year old 150mm lens to a........APO Sironar-S. And I am doing your business harm. I can assure you, I will certainly not be buying a US model APO Sironar -S under any circumstances.... My 10 year old Symmar-S Schneider has never looked more sensible.

tim atherton
17-Jan-2005, 13:33
"APO Sironar-S. And I am doing your business harm. I can assure
you, I will certainly not be buying a US model APO Sironar -S under any
circumstances.... "

You could always see if there is a US dealer who will sell you a legitimate parallel import. Or else just buy Schneider

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 14:58
Thilo,

That is not a valid comparison here. You are missing the point. It was more like Don saying I am selling a Minor White over here and by the way if you are interested I am also selling a Kirk Gittings over there. I would have no objections to that at all.

As I understand it HE WAS NOT MISREPRESENTING THE SALE!!!!! He was merely refering people to more items he was selling which included (UNFORTUNATELY for him!!!) a Heliopan filter.

By their own words, I've got to say that this thread is a bad reflection on HP Marketing who completely overreacted to a clients honest fopa (sp?). This is just paranoid legal blustering and an apology is in order in my opinion.

tim atherton
17-Jan-2005, 15:07
"fopa (sp?). " Faux pas - literally, false step

paulr
17-Jan-2005, 15:36
If you do choose the obvious route and just buy Schneider, I think you'll do the most good by sending a simple note, describing this incident, referencing this thread, and highlighting your final decision, to Bob's employers (not to Bob himself, who continually demonstrates that he cares more about the letter of the law, and about being righteous, than about his customers and prospective customers).

Graham Hughes
17-Jan-2005, 16:01
Something apparently lost in all this heat is that HP Marketing, if it wishes the Heliopan trademark to continue to legally exist is required by law to pursue each and every violation it becomes aware of. This is the same reason that Hormel tried to stop people from using "spam" as a term, the same reason Xerox lost its trademark, and the same reason why George Lucas was required to try to stop people from using "Star Wars" in naming the 1980s missile defense system. They do not have to win all of these, but they must pursue them. Bob does not have a real choice, here.

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 16:17
Graham

You are incorrect - I NEVER infringed their trademark. I NEVER violated the trademark Heliopan in any way.I NEVER broke any law regarding their trademark. I simply violated at Ebay policy. Bob's actions against my listing was not to protect their trademark, as I was not infringing it in any way (you can only take action against someone infringing your trademark, if they are in fact doing so...). It was simply obstructive. The policy of Ebay is very conservatively worded to assist Ebay in helping trademarrk owners protect their trademarks. Bob Salomon is simply using this beyond the scope for what it was intended. The policy is designed to stop someone inferrring that a product they are selling is comparable to a specific brand name, by association etc. An example -" buy an XHX filter - they are just like Heliopan..." There is absolutely no legal reason for Bob to have my auction stopped. While it is a violation of Ebay policy, Ebay only enforce what I did if a trademark owner lodges a written complaint about the specific listing. I object that he has gone out of his way to have my auction stopped when I am not in any way interfering with, harming or otherwise causing him any damage or threat to his business.



HP Marketing control some pretty special products in the USA. I think anyone who is going to buy one of their products should understand the way they do business and how obstructive their representation is or at least has been in this case.

Nigel Smith
17-Jan-2005, 16:20
Don't eBay themselves create links (and pictures) to other items by the seller automatically...

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 16:23
Graham,

Something apparently lost in all this heat is that HP Marketing, if it wishes the Heliopan trademark to continue to legally exist is required by law to pursue each and every violation it becomes aware of.

Simply mentioning the word Heliopan is not a trademark violation. If it was, Bob and HP would be suing you me and everyone else who has used the "H" word in this thread.

How, exactly, did Don's statement "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters" violate HP's Heliopan trademark? I asked Bob the same question above, but he has not responded.

I agree that Bob and HP Marketing (better not use just "HP" as that is somebody else's trademark) have every right to defend their trademark. However, in this case there was no trademark violation. Don's listing technically violated eBay's keyword spamming (apologies to the good folks at Hormel) policy and that's why Don's auction was pulled - not for violating HP Marketing's Heliopan trademark.

Bob does not have a real choice, here.

Yes, actually he does. This was clearly not a trademark violation, but Bob still reported it to eBay and had Don's auction terminated. What, exactly, did Bob and HP Marketing gain by this action?

P.S. Notice Schneider did not report Don for using their B+W trademark in his auction listing.

Kerry

Paddy Quinn
17-Jan-2005, 16:23
"Something apparently lost in all this heat is that HP Marketing, if it
wishes the Heliopan trademark to continue to legally exist is
required by law to pursue each and every violation it becomes aware
of. This is the same reason that Hormel tried to stop people from using
"spam" as a term, the same reason Xerox lost its trademark, and the same
reason why George Lucas was required to try to stop people from using
"Star Wars" in naming the 1980s missile defense system. They do not
have to win all of these, but they must pursue them. Bob does not have a
real choice, here."

that is simply incorrect and is both a vast overstatement and clear mis-statment of trademark law

Randy_5067
17-Jan-2005, 16:26
Actually, Bob did have a choice, and he made a poor one, in my opinion. Had he kept HIS opinions on this matter to himself, and quit trying to justify his actions, this thread would have stopped about 50 responses earlier. I ask once again... In order to keep HP from screaming "infringement", must we never sell one of their items again for fear we may mention their name? Horses***! And also for the person buying them from one market and selling to another. Good business sense to me! It sounds like HP is not fearful of any trademark/copyright infringement, only that they may lose a buck from someone else selling their product. It all comes down to the bottom right-hand corner of the spreadsheet, does it not?

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 16:32
" Notice Schneider did not report Don for using their B+W trademark in his auction listing."

They can not register the B+W trademark as they are a subsidiary of the parent factory in Germany.

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 16:37
Bob

It is clear that you have read the thread and are now choosing not to answer the awkward questions. Not too surprising and certainly consistent with the modus operandi...

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 16:53
" I asked Bob the same question above, but he has not responded."

I did long ago. He listed a non Heliopan item that was found by doing a search for Heliopan on Ebay.

If you feel that this is a rule/regulation that Ebay should change then tell Ebay.

Again.

Don is not prevented from selling his Heliopan filter. He listed it and it probably is still listed.
Don is not prevented from selling any other of his filters. He is simply prevented from mentioning Heliopan in his listings for other filters.

GOT IT. HE LISTED AND PROBABLY STILL HAS LISTED HIS HELIOPAN FILTER. We never tried to stop him from selling his Heliopan filter. The only thing that may prevent him from selling his Heliopan filter is no one bidding or someone not bidding high enough to win it. Or Ebay stopping him from any listings if they decide that he frequently violates their policies.

But his sale of a Heliopan filter was not reported to Ebay by us. Or stopped by us.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:03
Don,

The answer was emailed to you when you asked. It was stated above.

You violated an Ebay policy that involved our trademark. Period. No other reason, no vendetta, no prevention of your sale of the Heliopan filter. Only the Nikon and B+W filter that mentioned Heliopan in the leisting.

That is it. The only reason. Don't like it, obviously? Then complain to the people who cancelled your listings because it violated their policy and involved our Trademark.

In the meantime relist the 2 filters that you improperly listed and sell them. Just don't include other product names in the listing.

If you want to sell a Heliopan, B+W and a Nikon filter do what one individual is doing now on Ebay. List them in the same sale. Then there is no problem.

There are no awkward questions in this thread.

We take all steps necessary and required to protect our Trademark. Period.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 17:03
I did long ago. He listed a non Heliopan item that was found by doing a search for Heliopan on Ebay.

Bob,

Yes, that answers the question of why eBay terminated his auction (it violated eBay's keyword spamming policy). However, that was not the question I asked. Here it is again...

How, exactly, did Don's statement "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters" violate HP's Heliopan trademark?

Kerry

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:07
"How, exactly, did Don's statement "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters" violate HP's Heliopan trademark?"

Any improper usage of our Trademark is reported to Ebay. They then decide to end or not end the auction. In this case they ended it. If you question how or why ask them. they set the policy.

If you want to discuss it you are welcome to do so at NANPA.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:10
What would you do with this listing that was just posted on Ebay?

"B+W 52mm UV filter; Leica M, Voigtlander

You are bidding on a MINT condition Heliopan B+W 52mm UV filter. I bought the filter to use on a 50mm Voigtlander Nokton lens. Both the filter and lens were used sparingly, and are for sale separately on Ebay. It is AS NEW and comes in original packaging. I am selling this filter and other excellent Leica M equipment because I'm shooting more digital now.

The auction includes the following items:

B+W 52mm UV filter

Original packaging"

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 17:11
"We take all steps necessary and required to protect our Trademark."

Well please explain how my actions theatened your trademark. Once again, I assert with complete confidence that they did not in any way. They simply violated an Ebay policy (corporate, not legal and in no way related to any law). Therefore, once I again, I implore you to explain to me how on earth you construe this as proctecting your trademark? Why take written action in defense of your trademark if it was not "threatened"? If you cannot explain my threat to your trademark, then the only conclusion I can draw from your actions is "to be obstructive"...

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:16
Yes Don we obstruct any improper use of our Trademark on Ebay and you used it improperly on Ebay.

Simple enough. Now ask Ebay to change their policy. But if you don't abide by their rules and use our Trademark in doing so we report it. They may end it for the violation.

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 17:24
Sorry Bob - I did NOT improperly use your trademark - I improperly communicated my other items in an auction listing in contravention of an Ebay policy - not a law - how is that improperly using your trademark??? That's the whole point... but it appears you don't get it and never will, because you have ducked this question all the way down the thread.

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 17:36
"Actually, Bob did have a choice, and he made a poor one, in my opinion. Had he kept HIS opinions on this matter to himself, and quit trying to justify his actions, this thread would have stopped about 50 responses earlier."

Don's little "faux pas" (thank you Tim) pales (pales!!!!) in comparison to the MONUMENTAL marketing blunder that HP "MARKETING" Corp. is committing here.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:36
Darn Don,

I am sorry.

" because you have ducked this question all the way down the thread"

No I have not. You used the name Heliopan in your listings. Had you not you would not have had this happen to you.

If you use Heliopan in your Ebay listing then you are supposed to be selling a Heliopan item. You are not to use a trademarked item in an ad to cross link to another sale. That is what you did. Had you left out the trademarked name, Heliopan, your listing would not have been reported and ended.

Now why not read Rules for Sellers on the Ebay site or complain to Ebay that you are not happy with their rules. Not laws. Ebay rules. that is what you violated when you used our trademark to link to other sales.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 17:41
Now Kirk what blunder?

We did not prevent Don from selling his properly listed Heliopan filter. Ebay stopped his selling two improperly listed filters.

Now what problem do you have with this when it is whittled down to the basics?

paulr
17-Jan-2005, 17:46
Bob,
at this point I no longer believe that you're having trouble understanding the question. It seems to me that you're concerned slolely with proving yourself right, at all costs and against astronomical odds, and for some reason are oblivious to the way it makes you look to just about everyone here.

You fail to point out how the add in question violated HP's trademarks, because I suspect it would be impossible to do so. The add merely mentioned another ad, which did in fact sell an HP import. This may violate an ebay policy, by the strictest interpretation of the letter of their rules, but it in no way violates your trademarks. If you have any rational grounds for disagreeing with this premise, then please share them in some way other than repeating you non-sequitur response again and again.

On a personal note, I would be very impressed by someone in your shoes who did the following:
1) acknowledged that he has angered and alienated his customers and prospective customers.
2) owned up to the lack of logic that led to a regretable policy or decision.
3) outlined a new policy that better serves the interests of both his company and his customers.
4) made some kind of gesture of apology to the person who was directly effected, in order to show that he means all this and that he values the customer.

And on the other hand, I would suggest that someone who behaves in the following ways should be transfered to a job that keeps him out of contact with any customers (corporate litigation, perhaps?) and maybe even recommend him for some counseling on interpersonal skills:
1) remains defensive and combative
2) falls back on the same arguments, however illogical, when backed into a corner
3) refuses to acknowledge the points of view of his custormers or potential customers
4) refuses to empathize with his customers or potential customers
5) holds the letter of laws/policies in higher regard than the goodwill of his customers
6) appears more concerned with proving himself right than with taking care of his customers' concerns

Just some food for thought.

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 17:59
Bob in all honesty, no matter what you believe you are acomplishing here, HP's actions in this matter and your uncompromising defense of it comes off as incredibly petty and tyranical. I'm afraid that whatever dastardly deed that you think you prevented here by going after Don's little ad, has lost you far more business than you preserved. Heliopan filters are great. I own a few myself, but they are not the only good filters out there. You do have competition and the ill will created here will affect peoples future choices.

Bob Salomon
17-Jan-2005, 18:02
Let's do this one more time.
"This may violate an ebay policy, by the strictest interpretation of the letter of their rules, but it in no way violates your trademarks. If you have any rational grounds for disagreeing with this premise, then please share them in some way other than repeating you non-sequitur response again and again."

He used our trademark, Heliopan, to cross link to another sale. That is a violation of Ebay's rules that used/involved the use of the trademark.

That is all that happened. he used the name to improperly link to another ad. that made our trademark appear when doing a search for Heliopan and resulted in finding ads that used the Heliopan name in selling another product.

We report these improper uses as well as any violations of our trademark.

Obviously Ebay found that the listing was a violation of their rules as they ended the auction. Had the useage been within their rules they would not have ended the listing.

His complaint is with Ebay as they set the rules, provide the means to report it and are the ones that enforce it.

Now I am going to go to bed early as I have an early flight tomorrow so you can discuss this among yourselves.

Kirk Gittings
17-Jan-2005, 18:16
Didn't somebody like Tammy Wynette sing a song-something like CLUELESS.

paulr
17-Jan-2005, 18:47
"Once again I post & prove one should never get into an argument with an idiot as onlookers can't tell the difference when watching."

I wonder what Bob's boss would think of all this? If he can't tell the difference, then Bob's just the symptom, not the problem.

I might just be tempted to find out.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 19:47
Any improper usage of our Trademark is reported to Ebay. They then decide to end or not end the auction. In this case they ended it. If you question how or why ask them. they set the policy.

Bob,

You really, really REALLY don't get it, do you?

Don's ad was NOT an infringement of HP Marketing's Heliopan trademark. You did nothing here to protect your trademark. All you did was help eBay enforce their keyword spamming policy.

I understand 100% why eBay pulled Don's ad - and I repeat, it had absolutely, positively nothing to do with with trademark law. It was pulled for violating eBay's keyword spamming policy - don't believe me go to the eBay help site and do a search on "keyword spamming".

You still have not answered my question:

"How, exactly, did Don's statement "See my other auctions for some Heliopan and B+W filters" violate HP's Heliopan trademark?"

If you plan to, yet again, site eBay policy, save your breath - my question has nothing to do with eBay policy. I am only concerned with why you think this is an infringement of your Heliopan trademark.

Finally, what did HP Marketing gain by your actions? You did nothing to protect your trademark, and instead have offended people who might otherwise be interested in buying products bearing that trademark. How is that possibly good for HP Marketing?

Look at it this way, what's the worst possible thing that could have happened had you not interfered with Don's auction listing? All you did was inconvenience him and force him to re-list his Nikon and B+W filters - without the Heliopan reference. BTW, that Heliopan reference was pointing people TO his Heliopan listings, all which start "Heliopan makes the finest filters money can buy." - and you consider this a bad thing? Yes, he'll probably sell his Heliopan filters on eBay, and you might not like that, but it's his right. But, consider this, every auction has only one winner. Those who lose are still in the market for a filter, and after reading Don's claim that "Heliopan makes the finest filters money can buy", perhaps they might consider buying a new Heliopan filter instead. Even if they don't, they leave Don's auction after reading the highest praise for Heliopan filters. Ironically, thanks to your actions fewer will read Don's glowing praise of Heliopan filters - and many more will read of your actions in this matter.

You are losing both this battle and the war. Even if you chose to not answer my questions, you may wish to re-consider you motives before trying similar tactics in the future. Again - you did nothing in this instance to protect your legal trademark, but instead generated a whole lot of ill will for yourself and your products.

If you want to discuss it you are welcome to do so at NANPA.

I have no plans to attend NANPA this year. Too many other things fighting for my time.

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 19:53
P.S. Even if Don hadn't used a trademarked name in his listing, but had still used unrelated keywords (hidden or visible), eBay would have yanked his auction. If he would have said something like "House for sale on five acres, with barn, fenced pasture and two horse." eBay would have still pulled his ad for keyword spamming - including keywords not related to the item in the listing. You may have reported it as what you thought was a violation of your trademark (which is wasn't), but the listing was terminated by eBay for violation of their keyword spamming policy - not for trademark infringement.

Kerry

Isaac Crawford
17-Jan-2005, 20:45
Amen Kerry... Why Bob thinks he needs to enforce Ebay's rules is beyond me. Yes, he mentioned Heliopan, but only to sell one. There was no trademark infringement, there was nothing that needed HP marketing's meddling with. Clearly there are people that misrepresent the brand or try some sort of illegal importation, but simply mentioning an auction of Heliopan filters WHEREVER THAT POSTING MAY OCCUR is of no concern to HP Marketing even if it does violate an Ebay rule. Even if you think you're doing Ebay a favor (and that's all it is as no law was broken), you would be wise to stop angering so many people. You know, in all the years of hanging out in usenet and various other photo forums, I have never, ever heard of anyone announcing that that they will never buy brand X because of the rep, except when it comes to HP marketing. Or to look at it another way, there isn't any other company that has cost itself sales by letting the rep anger people online.

Isaac

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 21:02
Isaac, Don and others,

I'm not suggesting a boycott of any of the products HP Marketing represents. They distribute some of the finest products available to us large format users. I'm merely trying to encourage Bob to see the big picure and the ramifications of his actions on this issue.

Bob is very willing to share information on the products he reps, and has mailed me such information promptly whenever I have requested it. In such case, Bob is undoubtedly serving the customer and supporting the products his company distributes.

In this particular case, I think Bob's actions were heavy handed and counter productive. I understand the need to protect intellectual property rights, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I do feel, that in this case, in his overzealousness to protect his company's trademmark rights, he took it too far. He ended up persecuting someone who may have been technically violating eBay's keyword spamming policy, but did not violate any copyright law, and did no harm HP Marketing or the trademarks they legally hold. This is just my personal opinion, but I can't understand how someone who states, in his other auction listings, "Heliopan makes the finest filters money can buy" is somehow harming the Heliopan brand name.

Kerry

paulr
17-Jan-2005, 21:04
New theory:
Bob actually works for Schneider.

Isaac Crawford
17-Jan-2005, 21:23
New theory: Bob actually works for Schneider.

LOL, that's funny! I'm not advocating a boycott either, but I have heard the sentiment several times and I thought it odd that HP Marketing was the only rep company to suffer this.

Isaac

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2005, 21:27
Pardon the thread drift, but I do find it interesting that someone made a post on this very topic on photo.net, and it was deleted in short order by the photo.net moderators.

All the more reason I prefer the non-commercial nature of this forum.

P.S. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to occasionally use moderation when things get out of hand, but in this case photo.net killed the thread before readers had a chance to hear Bob's side of this issue. While photo.net may have been attempting to protect commercial interests, they denied Bob the chance to defend his position.

Kerry

paulr
17-Jan-2005, 21:55
"While photo.net may have been attempting to protect commercial interests, they denied Bob the chance to defend his position."

Sounds like they did him a huge favor.

Alright. I'll lay off now. End of dogpile. The free market will judge this one.

Peter Galea
17-Jan-2005, 21:59
What a bunch of drivel. I guess this is the most exciting thing happening in Large Format today. Sorry you're the whipping boy Bob. I think I'll go expose some film. Maybe you all should too.

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 22:04
Pray tell us what you are exposing that film of at 20:59 PT? Star trails...?

Donald Hutton
17-Jan-2005, 22:09
I meantt, what are you exposing that film to at TO at this time of night?

Eve Kendal
17-Jan-2005, 22:20
Bob,
I for one will never buy anything from HP Marketing. Picking on someone on Medicare trying to make a couple of bucks , you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Eve.

Frank Petronio
18-Jan-2005, 06:43
I haven't even read the whole thread, but I'll stick up for Bob even if he is wrong here. I don't think he is getting rich off large format photography and talk of a boycott is bullshit. His contributions far outweigh any gaffs.

Also, I don't know my Trademark law but he does have a point, and while he can't prevent every misuse of a mark, he can make an example of a misuse in order to establish that he is trying to protect the mark. If you don't defend your mark, then it becomes easier to lose it.

Funny that a few threads over, Bob is graciously helping the same folks flogging him here, on a question about a used camera that probably deprived him of another new sale.

Michael S. Briggs
18-Jan-2005, 08:18
Implicity equating Bob to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein is over the line. Causing an ebay auction to be cancelled and mass murder are very different.

Frank Petronio
18-Jan-2005, 09:01
Bob isn't perfect. But he is proven to be honest and helpful, and I will be sympathetic to his point of view no matter what.

And you would sic Kofi Annan on his ass? Big threat.

Mike Lopez
18-Jan-2005, 09:02
Anybody ever read that columnist on ESPN.com that lists his "Unintentionally funny" moments in sports and such?