Recent problem with Bob Salomon on photo.net / ebay

[Richard Fenner]

This is not a personal attack - it is a calm and accurate description of a thread on photo.net at the moment, concerning Bob Salomon.
Basically, a person in Canada sought advice on photo.net, relating to the purchase of a lens hood. They were recommended by Bob, a Heliopan hood. They then bought it from an authorised US dealer (a strong point in this case in their favour, but imagine if it wasn't).
For whatever reason, they then attempted to sell it on ebay, with the product being available to the US. They were emailed by Bob that they weren't permitted to sell this item (presumably 'to the US'), and a few hours later, the listing was ended by ebay at Bob's request.
What does this mean? If Bob's interpretation is always accepted by ebay, any attempt to list an item from outside the US, which would be available for purchase by someone in the US, would be immediately terminated if it was an item of any of the following marks:
Ansmann
Berlebach
Braun
CombiPlan
DF Albums
Ergorest
Gepe
Gepe-Pro
Giottos
Heliopan
Kaiser
Kopho
Linhof
Novoflex
Pro-Release
Rimowa
Rodenstock
Sirostar
Tetenal Cloths and Ink Jet Papers
VR
Vue-All archival negative slide and print protectors
Wista
ZTS

The thread of concern is:

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

Please don't let any sympathy with the OTT personal attacks there blind you to the point.

Anyone else unhappy with this situation?

[Moderator note: this thread has been edited mostly to remove redundancy. Please
do not contribute if you have no new ideas to add, but are just stating your opinion. QTL]

[John Bailey]

Dear Richard

I do not have a dog in this fight, but perhaps, can see both sides of the issue. If a company does not vigorously defend trademark and name issues, there might be the chance of losing use of a brand name. That seems to be why Xerox really does not want you to think a photocopy from a Canon machine is a Xerox copy and look at what happened to Kleenex. I am not a lawyer, but imagine when items cross international borders, there are many more issues than may be apparent to us.

Take it a step further. Can the use by a foreign person of a copyrighted photo just once for commercial purposes be considered acceptable? Does not protecting your images and their copyrights need to be a full time vigilence especially in other countries? Ask the movie industry about their problems with pirated movies in Asia.

I recommend considering both sides of complicated issues.

Regards,

John Bailey

[Steve Gangi]

Since I usually am a buyer on EBay and not a seller, I want to know what I am buying.... Say I am looking for Canon F1 or a Linhof Technika. I want to know that they are just that. If the seller claims perfect condition, I want to see a photo attesting to that (yes I know photos can be faked). I don't see how selling a used Heliopan hood and calling it a Heliopan hood infringes anything. It is a private sale, and the brand/model etc are for the sole purpose of telling possible buyers what you are selling. If I ever saw an EBay ad that just said "Stuff for sale, email for info", I would not waste my time any further. This doesn't look like trademark or patent infringement to me. Maybe if the seller was making and selling counterfeit knockoffs, but that is not the case. Maybe he just didn't like what he bought after trying it. I know one thing, I'm not buying any Heliopan or HP marketing items. I don't want them or anyone else in my knickers. Once I buy something, I can do as I please with it. That includes using it, running a truck over it, or selling it off later. Once the money has changed hands, it is MY private property to use or dispose of as I see fit. Sorry HP Marketing, sorry Bob Salomon, you just lost one potential customer for good.

[John Downie]

Well,

I find it interesting that the overseers of photo.net have let this thread continue. I had an entire thread pulled because I "insulted" Bob Salomon, with the same word used in at least two of the current messages. I added "grumpy" as a modifier, that must be the key. I cannot post to that forum as punishment for this preceived slight.

Anyway, the overall implications are not good for buying on eb@y nor, I believe, for buying any products sold by HP Marketing, though the ability for HP Marketing to pull the auction is for only those products for which they are the exclusive importer, I should think. I think the HP Marketing boycott is a great idea - plus messages sent to the manufacturers, who cannot be pleased by this behavior. They grant HP Marketing an exclusive if they believe by doing so, they will get higher US sales than by allowing multiple importers. If a large group of vocal customers complains, then perhaps the policy will be changed. Perhaps Rodenstock will not be happy if they are affected by HP Marketing's Heliop@n policy.

J

[Ted Harris]

You can read the original thread over and over and you will never be able to make an informed judgement because all the facts are neither presented nor available. See my post on photo.net for more details.





I have no dogs in this fight either but I do know that HP Marketing's 'relationship' to the "Heliopan" name goes beyond a simple license. I also know that failure to vigerously product the unauthorized/inappropirate use of trademarks and registered names owned by your compay can easily lead to voiding those rights.





Finally, and most importantly, while a discussion of white, gray and black markets, of distributers markups and services rendered, etc. is an interesting topic and a useful discussion ..... let's see if we can do it with all the facts if we are going to do it al all.

[Bob Salomon]

You might go to Ebay and read their rules regarding Trademarks and listings.

While I appreciate your comments you are simply repeating what someone from Canada on the Photonet stated yesterday.

Let's understand something.

We are the licensed, authorized importer (except for the Combi-Plan T which we own) of the items that we list on our web site.

We import and distribute these items to camera or luggage stores or professional photo finishers. We do not advertise in foreign publications and we do not have sales reps outside the US. All of our efforts are in the US.

All of the lines that we represent are represented by various companies in Canada. We neither promote or sell to Canada.

If someone asks a question we answer it. That is what happened in the case of the individual who wanted to export a Heliopan item back to the US. He could have just as easily purchased it in Canada. For whatever reason he chose not to support a retailer in his country.

We sell our products through dealers in the US. We have had, in the recent past, a problem with some individuals who decided to open a home store to import directly some of our products. These individuals were not registered as a business in the place they were located, they collected no sales tax when they made sales in their state, in one case an individual was on 100% Medicaid and was not reporting any income from the sale of products from their home.

These individuals, who paid no tax, who employeed no one, who had no expenses for the sale of product, then decided that they would totally disrupt the marketplace by selling at prices well below market, They used our advertising and our show costs to boost the sale of this product. They sold product which we were then supposed to warranty with our lifetime warranty.

Because of these problems we became the owner of the Heliopan Trademark by having the factory assign it to us.

Yes this means that some individual outside the US can not export Heliopan to the US without violating our laws. That individual may be simply what he seems - a person who wants to sell a personal possession. However we have no way of knowing if that, in fact, is true or if he is using this as a means to bypass the Trademark rules and regulations.

And if you want to buy a Heliopan filter on Ebay then there are several auctions going on right now.

[John Downie]

Winning the battle and losing the war, perhaps. It appears that a lot of negative energy has been created for HP Marketing and all of its brands over what, at most, could represent a few dollars loss. I fail to see that the home store situation requires similar effort for what is, quite obviously, a one-off. (I am assuming that Mr. Chen did not have more than one filter for sale)

I wonder if HP Marketing is so diligent in ensuring that the US product does not get re-exported into other markets...

[jerry brodkey]

Somehow the fundamental question didn't get answered. If HP Marketing knew for a fact that he was selling a personal possession, would he be violating our laws by bypassing Trademark rules and regulations? For instance, If it was an old model Linhof that clearly showed signs of use, would it be against the law to import it?

[Bob Salomon]

"If it was an old model Linhof that clearly showed signs of use, would it be against the law to import it?"

No.

[tim atherton]

and the first bit?:

"If HP Marketing knew for a fact that he was selling a personal possession, would he be violating our laws by bypassing Trademark rules and regulations?"

[John Downie]

I suspect it is only with the Heliop@n name, since that is what HP Marketing owns the trademark on.

What about:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2951655416&category=4702

[Bob Salomon]

Just as a point of interest here are some of the companies whose trademarks are registered on Ebay through their VERO program:

ACD Systems Ltd. Adobe Aircraft Technical Publishers Alan Wasser Associates. Alar Productions Inc. Alias/Wavefront ALK Technologies, Inc. Almost Free PC Alpha Omega Publications American Airlines American Legends, Inc. (Photo Division) American School of Needlework AMP Research Anders Moden Anderson Images Inc. ANNA ART Anna Rose Collection Annie's Attic AOA - Alternative Online Artists Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. Avalon Computers Amway Arbonne International Artists Rights Society Atlantic Recording Corp. Bad Monkey Productions Band To Bow Banned CD Barnes & Noble, Inc. Bauer Griffin, LLC Bee-Alive, Inc. Bear Country Farm Big Idea Productions, Inc. Borden, Inc. BOWFLEX® BroadVision Bronze Gallery Browning Laboratories, Inc. Cadence Design Systems Inc. CameraQuest Caren's Collectibles CBT Systems Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts Chanel, Inc. Chihuly Studio, Inc. Chintz Net Chocolate Starfish LTD. Chordant Distribution Group/EMI Music Classic Video L.L.C. Close To My Heart Cocteau Twins Coldwater Creek Inc. The Collegiate Licensing Company Consolidated Chemical Cool Savings, Inc. Creative Images Creative Memories Criswell Embroidery & Design Crystal Air Canada Inc. Curious Labs, Inc. Dale Earnhardt, Inc. Dana's Studio Daniel J. Karnes DarkHorse Ranch, Inc. Dart Industries David Delamare Debbie Mumm, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc. The Delta Phi Fraternity DIRECTV® Discovery Toys, Inc. Disney Enterprises, Inc. Doggie Bow Ties Don Cornelius Productions, Inc. Dynamite Designs, LLC EBSQ Self-Representing Artists Echo Marketing LLC Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. Eel Pie Recording Ltd. Elektra Entertainment Corp. Emerald Enterprises Empire® Comics Enchanted Art Entertainment Publications Eyelet Queen Inc. Eurotech Photographics Fender Musical Instruments Corporation The Ferret Company Fitness Made Simple/Manta Communications Forefront Direct Frederick’s of Hollywood, Inc. Frito-Lay, Inc. Gehl's Guernsey Farms, Inc. George Halbert Productions GeoVision Inc. GetHighTech, Inc. Gifts by Tonya Good Fairy Ent. GLOCK, Inc. Gretsch Company, The Gucci America, Inc. The Happy Hammer Hard Rock Cafe Hermès Hilary Haran HIWATT Amplification® Hobby House Press Hoberman Designs Horizon Organic House of White Birches Id Films Independence Computers Injen Technology Co. Ltd. InJoy Productions, Inc. Invisible Fence, Inc. JAMO US, Inc. Jeepster Jeff Buckley Jeffrey Blackwell John Deere Kaman Music Corporation Kate Spade LLC Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. Kenny Wayne Shepherd Kicking Bull Gallery Kidz Closet Designs TM Kiwanis International KNB Enterprises, Inc La'Baby Boutique Lancaster Colony Corporation Learnkey, Inc. LeRoy Neiman Linens 'N Things, Inc. Little Suzy's Zoo Lizzie Borden The Longaberger Company Love Potion® Luminox Watch Company Lycoris MA Audio Macromedia, Inc. Make Music!, Inc. Market America, Inc. Mamiya America Corporation Mars, Incorporated Mary Frances Accessories Mary Kay, Inc. Marvel Comics/Marvel Enterprises, Inc. Master of Illusions Entertainment Matt Groening Mattleonard Maverick Recording Company McCarthy & Kelly LLP and North Jersey Media Group MedicAlert Foundation International Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. Metropolitan Kitchen Micron Microsoft The Midwest Center for Stress & Anxiety, Inc. Miken Sports Milwaukee Electric Tool Mitchell Repair Information Company Monolith Graphics MOMO Mort Kunstler Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Motorola, Inc. Moviecraft Inc. MTX Audio MYOB US, Inc. National FFA Organization Net Enforcers Inc. Nettwerk Productions Network Associates, Inc. Network Learning, Inc. (CCBOOTCAMP) Neumann/USA No Bozos Records Nonesuch Records, a division of Warner Communications Inc. Northwest Airlines, Inc. Novell, Inc. NSA Inc. Juice Plus+® NY 9-11 Patch Oakley Octagon Oglio Entertainment Group, Inc. Orlando Digital Telephone Corp. Panera Bread Company Patmont Motor Werks/Go-Ped® Paul Reed Smith Guitars LTD Pepi and Company. Petra Fashions, Inc. Philips Electronics The Phone Authority Piaggio USA, Inc. Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. Pioneer Thinking Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. Plush Zoo Precise Exercise Equipment, Inc. Princess House, Inc. Publick Ptomaine Music Quickutz, Inc. Quixtar Razormaid! Productions The Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.A.A.) Red Steagall's Cowboy Corner ReggieJackson.com, LLC Reliv International Revelation Records Rhino International Rights Central Ron Newcomer Roundheer Rotary International Roush Racing Sadowsky Guitars Ltd. Saint Louis Bread Co. Salt Lake 2002 Organizing Committee Score Entertainment Scottcrew Enterprises Serial Killer Designs Shabby Chic ShippingSupply.com Sid Dickens, Inc SmartCertify Direct SmartForce SmartSound Software, Inc. Southwest Airlines Spider-Man Merchandising L.P. Stampin' Up!® Stanton Magnetics, Inc. Starbucks Coffee Company Star-Music International Stedman's Steinberg Media Technologies, AG STILETTO Entertainment Streamer Effects International Stussy Inc. Suzy's Zoo Swarovski Aktiengesellschafts Swiss Army Brands, Inc. Synergetics T2 Web Group TestOut Corporation The Needlecraft Shop TheNetter.com The Runaways Tom Kelley Studios, Inc. Tomy Ltd. Top Secret Recipes Total Gym Fitness, LLC TracFone® Wireless, Inc. TradeStation Technologies, Inc. Transcender LLC True Colors Tupperware Corporation Unearthed Films United States Golf Association, Inc. Urban Vision Entertainment Valeo, Inc. Vanderbilt University Varese Sarabande Records Velcro Industries B.V. Vera Bradley Vidbidness Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC Visonik Vornado V.S. Protective Shield The Wackenhut Corporation Warner Bros. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. Warner Music Latina Inc. Wedding Images, Inc. Weight Watchers International, Inc. The Wiggles Touring Pty Limited WILD 1 INC. Wonder Wizards World Trade Centers Association, Inc. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) www.cutecolors.com Yamaha Corporation of America You Name IT Zoodles, Inc.

[James Phillips]

Once again I see this problem in a very simplistic manner. A photographer purchased a piece of equipment, used this equipment for awhile and then decided to sell the used equipment via Eb@y. This can quite simply be stated as used equipment for sale like any other of perhaps thousands of ads on the internet and most certainly on Eb@y.

Does Bob Salomon spend time surfing and policing the internet for all the sites offering to sell used equipment that is distributed by HP Marketing and being sold from outside of the USA? Is he able to stop all of these sales and should he rightfully be permitted to do so? I do not think so.

When I first became interested in LF Photography and started to visit these forums seeking advice on future purchases I received personal emails from Bob Salomon offering to guide me to products that were in his opinion some of the best products available. Once Bob discovered that I was a Canadian photographer he dropped me like a hot potato. Since that time I have become convinced that his motivations are purely driven by profit and for that reason his contributions have “zero” value for myself. This thread only continues to reaffirm that concept.

Back to the main topic, I do not believe that Bob Salomon, Eb@y, and HP Marketing are correct in the manner in which this auction was terminated. I will be writing to the manufactures of the products that I own and which HP Marketing holds the right to distribute new in the USA stating my displeasure with this situation.

As a consumer of many photographic goods I will be even more selective of my purchase choices in the future based upon the information provided by this thread. I also fully intend to share this information in the future with anybody whom I interact with in regards to photography. I have recently taught an “Introduction to Photography” course this spring and am about to begin a new one in a few days for the fall session. I can assure you that my students will be made aware of this situation. Also as most of you are aware that if you tell two people, who tell two people and so on… well you get the idea. I also fully support the original seller and his right to sell any used photographic equipment that he legally owns via Eb@y in any country that he wishes.

Thank goodness those other countries in the free world do not resort to such tactics. God Bless Robert White !

Kind Regards,

[nathan cohen]

I find Mr. Salomon's replies reasonable and based upon the facts regarding ownership of said rights.

I still find it highly distasteful that ignorance of the IP law on trademarks and importation is being used as a tool to incite action here against Mr. Salomon.

If you have a strong disagreement with the law, then move to change it. Please do not vent this against Mr. Salomon's legitimate business efforts in this forum. That is a request I make on my behalf, and I believe many others here on photonet.

I do not know, nor have any affiliation with, Mr. Salomon nor his business.

[Guy Tal]

Well, legalese aside, one has to wonder what drives a company of this size and reputation to hound eBay users and people on disability trying to sell out of their garage (or some such example mentioned earlier). Is business *that* bad?

That said, it seems quite obvious (to me, that is) that HP is taking advantage of a legal loophole. I'm sure those who penned the patent law did not intend for it to be used to squelch competition by allowing monopolies to claim rights to things they neither invented or manufactured in the first place.

Guy

[Gem Singer]

When this forum moved away from photo.net to here, where it belongs, I was under the impression that personal attacks and crass commercialism were not going to be tolerated. Where are the moderators for this forum?? Looks like the same old same old to me. Will it never end?? My suggestion: If you're un-happy with something or someone on this forum, go back and participate in the LF forum on photo.net. Since misery loves company, these negative remarks will be highly appreciated among the participants on that forum.

[Kaatharine Thayer]

Why are threads on photo.net being transferred over here? Those who want to foment this controversy should keep it at photo.net where it belongs, in my opinion.

To conclude from this issue relating to distribution protection that all advice offered by Bob Salomon is motivated by profit and self-interest, as James Phillips did above, is insulting to Bob, demonstrates total ignorance of the history of Bob's contributions to this forum and is unworthy of the spirit of the forum.

When I was trying (unsuccessfully) to adapt a used Linhof studio tripod for use as a field tripod, Bob was infinitely generous with his time in helping me work through what could and couldn't be done, and there wasn't anything in it for him at all.

I am really concerned about the future of internet forums, not just this one but this discussion provides a case in point. I am afraid that people with knowledge to share will stop sharing it because it's just not worth the aggravation, and that will be the end of useful internet forums, what few of them are left.

[QT Luong]

While I don't like the "spill-over" from photo.net, I have not deleted this thread because apparently this is the only place where Bob Salomon's answer can be read. Maybe that is because so far the tone here has remained sufficiently polite, whereas Bob Salomon would not participate in a thread full of abuse at photo.net ? James and others are entitled to their opinions as long as their are expressed in a well-reasonned and polite way.

[John Bailey]

This thread seems to be going in endless circles and the tone is not improving as additions are added. In one answer, the contributor said he sought advice, but when he announced he was a Canadian that his help ceased. Realize in most cases, there are companies and distributor networks set up for Canada...from the sound of it maybe Mr. Salomon did not want to step on the toes or opportunity for the proper distributor to make a sale or perform tech or service support. Try to buy a GM, Ford, Chrysler or most any other car in Canada (taking advantage of the exchange rates) and bring it back to the U.S. for registration.

As for the case of Ms. Thayer, Mr. Salomon did not 'make' a nickel according to the scenario on the help given. Maybe she was remaining a retail customer, maybe she was not...the point being made was that help was offered with no specific quid pro quo.

Another person raised the white/grey/black market question, which is maybe the real underlying sensitivity. It is fine when we can 'score' a good deal at another persons expense or to circumvent a company's ability to make a profit. When we are caught and the music has stopped and we are without a chair, the hollering begins. Buying the lens from Hong Kong or the camera from London, we are all so shrewd, but when we need advice, help, service or want to resell and run into problems who should we blame? Maybe a bit of self-responsibility is the answer.

I hope the forum monitors will cease this thread ASAP.

Regards,

John Bailey

[Richard Fenner]

I'm also not happy with 'spill-over' from photo.net, but this was a thread of substantial importance to the LF community, and was missed by many LFers as it was on the MF forum. Further, I note nobody complained when somebody recently described their problems with a possible ebay fraudster, firstly on the LF forum and then here. Indeed, the poster didn't even indicate this was of LF equipment, making me wonder whether it really was that relevant (surely only complaints about LF sellers are appropriate here?).

But, there is an issue here that should be addressed - is it OK for posters with financial interests to post advocating equipment they sell, without disclosing this information. Bob has been very helpful to some people, but almost entirely when it's a product he sells. This gets complicated - people generally best know the equipment they sell day in and day out! I think people with financial interests in photographic equipment should have to declare it when making any recommendation. If Bob say 'xyz equipment is great for that use' I know Bob sells it - I don't think he recommends anything he doesn't sell (and I can't believe that he knows nothing about other equipment). If Ellis Vener recommends it, I know it's because he's tried and tested both it and probably several other pieces of similar equipment, regardless of manufacturer, and has nothing to gain from the recommendation apart from the knowledge that he's helped someone. That distinction counts.

[Bob Salomon]

"Furthermore, the fact that a blatantly specific query has been asked twice ["If HP Marketing knew for a fact that he was selling a personal possession, would he be violating our laws by bypassing Trademark rules and regulations?"]

But I have.

Ebay has specific guidelines about this. Just check them.

However if you feel you don't have to here is a statement. If it has the Heliopan logo this statement applies. In case there is any confusion, if Heliopan is on the product it is of foreign origin. Nothing Heliopan sells is made in the U.S.

Heliopan Trademark Information

Please read the following before listing an item with the name "Heliopan" This message provides awareness of the USA Trademark Laws applying to Heliopan's trademark registered in the United States.

Trademark and Gray Market Warning Notice HP Marketing Corporation, an American-owned company not related to the Heliopan factory in Germany, has registered the Heliopan Trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and has recorded these marks with the United States Customs Service for legal import restrictions in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Part 133. Under Section 526 (a) of the US Tariff Act of 1930, the importation of any foreign-origin merchandise bearing the Heliopan trademark, without the written consent of HP Marketing Corporation, is unlawful and prohibited. Unauthorized importations are subject to possible seizure and forfeiture by the United States Customs Service. HP Marketing Corporation is actively working with Customs to enforce these trademarks aggressively. HP Marketing Corporation will also pursue all of its available remedies for injunctive relief and damages against any companies or persons who import, distribute, sell or otherwise deal in gray market merchandise bearing these trademarks.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Some times good people can make silly mistakes. I think this is the case in this instance with Bob. As I understand it the guy bought the hood in the US, probably to avoid paying VAT taxes in Canada. Nothing wrong with that, how many of us have bought equipment out of state to avoid paying state sales tax?

He used it, decided he wanted to sell the lens he bought the hood for, and probably thought he had a better chance on selling the lens with the hood than without.

In his zealousness to protect his trademark, Bob decided to make life difficult for this guy and effectively stopped his auction. My questions are:

Did HP Marketing know that this item was going to be for resale or was it sold to an individual for personal use? If they knew it was going to be for resale, did they warn him it cannot be resold in the US?

In his response Bob implies the guy is an "out of the car trunk reseler" does he know this for a fact or is it just speculation?

If it turns out that this guy bought the hood for persoanl use and he was prevented from reselling for some perceived trade infraction, then I think it was a bad move on his part, after all he already got his FULL price for the item with warranty and all. OTOH if it turns out he was a reseller trying to circumvent trade laws, then he was/is in his right to prevent this sale.

If these questions can be answered then I think it would go a long way to explain the motivation Bob had for his actions.

As to the insults, specially in PN, I think they are out of bounds. No doubt, Bob can be opinionated, and sometimes an all around PITA. But I think nobody here can deny that he has taken the time to answer our questions, even those that we have sent privately. In his answers he is always very thorough and does not hesitate to follow up if there are more questions. IMO he is a valuable asset to this forum and just because he is human and makes a bad move now and then it is no reason to crucify him.

[Todd Caudle]

This all reminds me of Garth Brooks' miserable campaign against selling used CDs. Come on, big companies, stop sweatin' the small stuff that only serves to infuriate your customer base.

[Ken Burns]

"That individual may be simply what he seems - a person who wants to sell a personal possession. However we have no way of knowing if that, in fact, is true or if he is using this as a means to bypass the Trademark rules and regulations."

Yes, you have no way of knowing if that is true, but, without full investigation of the situation, you have no way of knowing that it is false. That being the case, Bob, it seems that you do not have adequate evidence to justify the actions that were taken against the individual in question. There are those on this forum as well as the photo.net forum who will never do business with HP Marketing again because of the poor image you have presented. That is not good business practice. HP Marketing needs to reevaluate their policies concerning such situations. Failure to do so, will, in the end, result in the loss of customer loyalty.

[Bob Salomon]

Jorge,

"Did HP Marketing know that this item was going to be for resale or was it sold to an individual for personal use? If they knew it was going to be for resale, did they warn him it cannot be resold in the US? "

Of course not. He did not buy anything from HP Marketing Corp., he has no bill of sale from HP Marketing Corp.

We are not a retailer. We sell to camera stores.

He bought this from a camera store. What may have been asked or what may have been answered in his transaction between the store and he only they know.

If, when he called us he told us he was in Canada we would have referred him to the Canadian distributor.

But just like Richard, who is in the UK, we have no way of knowing - unless one tells us - that he is in or out of the country. So John was given answers and service the same as anyone calling from the U.S.

[jerry brodkey]

Bob did seem to answer my question. Unless I am wrong, the issue only concerns Heliopan because HP Marketing owns the trademark. They do not own the trademarks of Linhof, Rodenstock, etc. Thus any item, new or used bearing the Heliopan logo can not be imported into the US without HP Marketing's permission. This situation doesn't pertain to most other if not all products marketed by HP Marketing.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Of course not. He did not buy anything from HP Marketing Corp., he has no bill of sale from HP Marketing Corp.



We are not a retailer. We sell to camera stores.



He bought this from a camera store



Thanks for answering Bob, unfortunately I have to side with the guys who think you went a bit too far in this instance. If the guy bought it from a store, he paid full retail price, so you have effectively gotten your money and compensation for the marketing, taxes etc. What he does with the hood afterwards is his business. Even if he bought 10 hoods for resale, if he bought them from an authorized US retailer and paid full price, then they are his to do what he likes with them, you have effectively gotten your moneys worth. If OTOH he bought them from a gray market reseller like B&H then perhaps you should go after B&H, not the guy who bought the hoods from them..no?

[QT Luong]

Bob, please clarify whether your policy applies to everything that HP markets
in the US, or just to the brand Heliopan.

Richard, this is the internet, where any advice has to be
double checked. As long as the advice is relevant and not unsollicited,
I have no problem with whatever motives the poster has.
It is up to the readers to figure it out that Bob markets the
products he recommends. Most of the regulars are aware of that, and from time
to time if they feel that Bob has been too blatant will post a rebuttal. IMO, this
works fine, and there is no need to change that or discuss that any further.

[Waldo Lee]

Here's something to keep Bob Salomon awake nights. Nefarious U.S. photographers right this minute could be unloading on eBay Heliopan filters that they picked up while travelling abroad! Yikes, there goes at least five or six HP Heliopan filter sales a year.

[Steve Gangi]

I just want to qualify my statements above, as being from the narrow perspective of an end-user, who acts only as a private individual, not as someone who is a "gray market" or re-seller. If this is a case of someone who simply bought, tried, and decided to get rid of this hood, then I think the company went way overboard on this one. If he turned out to be doing this as a business, then he should 1) have known better and 2) get his hand slapped. So again, as an "end user" who would have no commercial interest, I still would have to stand by what I already said about private property that has been bought and paid for in good faith. That would include keeping it, or selling it off. I am not a lawyer, but I could see the difficulties of getting rid of it, if not allowed to tell people what the heck it is I want to sell. Other than that, I could not care less if Bob markets the items he recommends, so long as he is honest. All I can say is, he hasn't lied to me (shrug). I just don't care for the idea of someone deciding what I can do with anything I bought and paid for after the fact. I better stop now, I'm beginning to repeat myself.

[Steve Lewis]

For Bob Salomon

Just to clarify the situation, could you answer the following for me?

If I buy a Heliopan hood from Robert White in the U.K. and 3 months later decide, for whatever reason, to sell it on eBay, can I;

1. Advertise it on the U.S. Ebay site?

2. Sell it to anyone in the U.S?

Thanks

Steve

www.landscapesofwales.co.uk

[Bob Salomon]

"If I buy a Heliopan hood from Robert White in the U.K. and 3 months later decide, for whatever reason, to sell it on eBay, can I;

1. Advertise it on the U.S. Ebay site? "

No you are not in the U.S.

If you live in the U.S. then yes you can.

"2. Sell it to anyone in the U.S? "

Yes, As long as you are not advertising it for sale.

"Thanks

Steve

www.landscapesofwales.co.uk

[Bob Salomon]

"U.S. photographers right this minute could be unloading on eBay Heliopan filters that they picked up while travelling abroad!"

No problem at all. You can list and sell it. You are not trying to export it to the U.S. as you carried it here from out of the country.

Listen carefully.

The Trademark policy only effects people who are located outside the U.S. (live outside the U.S.) and are trying to sell it to someone in the U.S.

It has no effect on anyone travelling anywhere and carrying back product for their PERSONAL USE.

If you are bringing back commercial quantities from outside the U.S. that would appear not be for personal use then you may very well have a problem with Customs.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The Trademark policy only effects people who are located outside the U.S. (live outside the U.S.) and are trying to sell it to someone in the U.S.



But like everything else there are two sides to every story. I bought my heliopan filters in the US as well as my linhof, used them and still use them often but now I have moved to Mexico. SO if I went to e bay and wanted to sell my filters or camera you are saying I can't because it infringes trademark? I think you are mistaken in this interpretation.



If this had happened 15 years ago, probably the only guy affected would have been the seller. But presently with the internet, info gets spread really fast.
So you prevented the sale of this hood, is it worth the bad feelings and probable loss in sales this has created? Think about it Bob, I think this was a really bad move and detrimental to your sales, B+W is still out there and what you have managed to do is drive potential customers to your competition.

[Bob Salomon]

"if I went to e bay and wanted to sell my filters or camera"

Who said anything about a camera, a lens, a compendium, etc.

This pertains to Heliopan. They do not make cameras.

[Rory_3532]

I am someone who has historically greatly appreciated Mr. Solomon's contributions on photography.

I would like to know something.

If I am a Canadian and buy a product in the US that is represented by HP Marketing, does HP Marketing intend to prevent me from selling it over the internet to an American resident in the US?

If I am an American and buy a product in Canada, does the Canadian product representative intend to prevent me from selling it over the internet to a Canadian? Or, for that matter, a European?

Am I right that Mr. Solomon's company regards any product that they represent as grey market when sent into the US including a good that I have bought, in my case as a Canadian who has bought in the US or, say Europe, and that I choose to offer on an international auction site?

If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, I can only say that while I greatly value Mr. Solomon's contributions, his company is not living in the real world and is in the process of generating a great deal of badwill, as distinct from goodwill. It certainly means that I will not buy any of the products that his company represents that are subject to this policy, which means that I would like to know which products are affected and which are not.

To pursue the analogy, the idea that someone in France, or in the US, is breaking the law if they sell me a second-hand Arca Swiss camera for delivery to Canada is really ridiculous. If that is what Mr. Salomon is saying, I'd really appreciate it if he would be clear about it.

[Bob Salomon]

Rory,

We own the Heliopan Trademark in the U.S as well as the HP Combi-Plan T. We are not speaking of any other item we sell. We do not stop you from purchasing anything from anywhere.

We do have the Heliopan Trademark Registered with US Customs and, if you are trying to export Heliopan to the U.S. Customs can prevent you from doing so without our written permission.

If you purchase a product we sell that we know is gray market - that means it was sold by a dealer who imported it into the U.S. by not going through the factory authorized distributor - HP Marketing in our case - then it is not covered by our warranty (which is generally longer then the factory warranty) and we do not supply service or support for that gray import. It may be covered by a dealer warranty (but not through factory trained service), nor do we supply technical support if we can prove it is gray.

Importation of Heliopan by such dealers is commonly called black market as the name is registered with Customs where gray market goods are not.

If someone lives in the U.S. and is dis-satisfied with the laws and regulations concerning Customs, Duties, or any other Federal or State or Local ordinance then they should contact and complain to their elected officials who can change the law.

Heliopan, you, HP Marketing, etc. are bound by the laws as they stand today if you live in the U.S. If you don't like you have the power of the ballet to try changing it. But you won't change those laws here.

[John Chen]

I am the person who originally tried to sell the Rollei lens with Heliopan hood. First off, I would like to say that it was not my intention to start a flame war about Bob Salomon or to question the ethics of American policy on grey market imports. I only wanted to inform others of certain aspects of US trademark policies and how they pertain to the selling or buying of photographic equipment.

American has the biggest market in the world. I know of many photographers living outside of the United States that purchase camera equipment from the US because companies like B&H and Ritz Cameras offers such attractive prices. But companies such as HP Marketing and MAC would like everybody to believe that it is illegal to import ALL products that bear their trademarked names. This is simply not the case with products that were purchased from authorized dealers in the United States, they are legitimate US domestic products, regardless of where they were originally manufactured. But don’t take my word for it. William Hennessey, a professor of intellectual property law and a consultant on international intellectual property issues for the United States Patent and Trademark Office was kind enough to correspond with me on this issue. He states, “A product of foreign manufacture originally purchased from a trademark holder in the United States, which then has been used outside the US, is not a parallel import but an authorized domestic product. So the reimportation into the US of such a product should not violate US law. The principle of exhaustion should hold. If, however, the goods are sold as "refurbished" rather than just used, then the trademark holder alleging that the consumer would be confused may demand an express disclaimer attached to the goods, but should not be able to prevent the re-importation."

I think there is also some confusion about the difference between patent rights/copyrights and trademark rights. William Hennessey explains, “In contrast to the patent right and copyright in the United States, under which the right owner may exclude all others from selling or distributing articles covered by the right, the "trademark right" is merely the right to prevent others from confusing one's customers in the marketplace, and not an exclusive right to sell.”

So patent or copyright infringement would come into play, if for example, I was trying to sell Adobe Photoshop through Ebay. HP Marketing however, only owns the trademark rights. They prevent grey market imports on the legal basis that the customers in the US market may be confused as to whether the products they purchase is grey market, or a US product. If HP Marketing was a subsidiary of Heliopan, they would not be able to prevent grey market imports, because they would be considered the same company. That is why companies like HP Marketing and MAC emphasizes that they are not affiliated with the foreign manufacturers in any way.

[James Driscoll]

Two observations....



1. Wouldn't it have made more sense to wait and see if the so called black marketer, tried to sell more heliopan stuff before making a big fuss??? I also feel a simple email to the seller should have been the first order of business. Clarification goes a long way.

2.Regardless of what you feel is right, all that really was accomplished was A: Preventing one hood from entering the USA. B: A lot of ill feeling towards HP Marketing. I understand the whole meaning behind trademarks and such, but in this particular instance it is sounds like the equivalant of pulling somebody over for doing 30.5 mph in a 30 mph zone. I feel having a little judgment goes a long way.....

of course we will hear from 77 posters who feel it is ok to pull somebody over for doing 30.5 mph in a 30 mph zone.

[neil poulsen]

It seems a significant detail that the filter was bought from U.S. retailer. Didn't HP derive their trademark benefit from that sale? Why should they derive further benefit?

In any event, EBay seems to be the great equalizer when it comes to mail type transactions. When EBay entered the picture, things changed in a fundamental way. I expect that EBay will also have its impact on these types of issues as well.

[John Bailey]

As a final observation on this topic, this may be a vision of the future. There is no doubt certain segments of the photography industry are undergoing significant changes.

Ebay has altered the way we buy and sell used equipment. Whereas before we might go to our local photo store and sell or put the equipment on consignment for the local patrons, today we are going on the internet.

No longer do we support that local dealer with our steady business. We do expect them to carry a full line of merchandise so we can touch, feel, examine and compare equipment and supplies. Then we race home, toggle Ebay or Google and find the cheapest prices from anywhere on the planet to save a few cents or dollars.

When a company is trying to preserve its legal market opportunities, we add letter after letter in public forums to call for 'boycott' of all their products. Maybe HP was right, maybe they were wrong, but the recriminations go on regardless if we understand the full situation or not. However, then we still demand that HP or other similar companies give us full inventories of new products, full service, the ability to return and exchange defective products and endless tech support.

On top of this, we are probably forgetting the obvious. Film is a diminishing product. It may not become a buggy whip, but look at the past three years of what is happening at Kodak. Fewer people are buying film cameras and accessories, let alone film stock. Maybe this is true for LF, maybe we are holding our own in purchasing equipment and supplies. However, the world is changing very quickly. We are quibbling about hoods and filters when alternative digital programs may make the products not as necessary. When the producer decides to cut back on product lines, we will all complain about being abandoned. No longer is it merely a battle between yellow boxes and green boxes for market share, now digital cameras and backs are putting a whole new spin on the industry.

Be careful of what we are hoping to accomplish. The actions may just result in a conclusion we don't expect or need.

Regards,

John Bailey

[bglick]

About this specific situation, I think Ken summed it up best.....

> Yes, you have no way of knowing if that is true, but, without full investigation of the situation, you have no way of knowing that it is false. That being the case, Bob, it seems that you do not have adequate evidence to justify the actions that were taken against the individual in question.

However, the last thing we will ever hear from Bob S is an apology or an admission of any wrong doing! Like everyone else on this forum, I have had my confrontations with Bob. I always give him the benefit of doubt, but he always ends up shooting himself in the foot. Although he does promote his products well and helps those who need help with these specific products, he could certainly would gain from some customer relations courses, which might reduce the number of people who alienate him. I have never seen a product rep have so many negative statements said against him. (where there is smoke, there is usually fire) However, I do have a very simple question for Bob S, but if he follows his past tactics of forum communications he will ignore the question.

Bob, as you know, all these issues revolve around one issue - price! If products were not so expensive (or maybe even very cost effective) in the USA vs. other markets in the world, your USA dealers would be selling product to people throughout the world, which I am sure is against the policy of many of your makers. However, I am sure HP would not spend the funds investigating or enforcing such policies as they can hide behind the vail of, we sell to retailers, we can't control who they sell to. Bob, I do understand your issue about the added cost HP puts into a product vs. a garage re seller. However, what baffles me, and you never seem to address it..... HP has added cost, but it also has huge buying power? Why doesn't this added buying power lower your product cost with these makers to support your marketing efforts, which would then bring your retail product pricing more consistent with other markets? Wal Mart advertises heavily, and has huge overhead with all their stores and distribution, yet they still sell products at or below market value. It seems HP has this capability, but it does not seem to work itself through in the market place?

In the UK, many of the products you sell also go through a rep like HP and then to dealers like Robert White.... with the same distribution chain, why are your product lines so overpriced vs. these other countries? I don't consider products that cost 10 - 20% more as overpriced, but I do consider products that cost 100% more as overpriced! This is what I often see when viewing your product lines. I realize the amount your products are overpriced vary, and please don't start quoting examples that are in your favor, I will blast out a huge list of products that are disgracefuly overpriced. I hope you will "rise to the occasion" and give us your perspective on this. I am sure you would agree if price was not an issue, all these grey issues would not exist!

[Jon_2416]

Yep, ole Bob and the HP police apparently don't have anything better to do... I've seen this guy 'suggest' that certain products are better than others to newbies... without identifying that he works for the distributor of said better products. It is my opinion that Saloman is arrogant and deceitful. Not only that, his company, since they do such an abysmal job of marketing some great LF gear, is doing a great disservice to the LF community.

It is amazing to see all the people on PN and here that are refusing to purchase any items distributed by HP. Good job, Bob! Your lack of marketing skills never fails to amaze me.

Not to mention, it looks like you don't have any legal ground to stand on. I hope Mr. Chen does get a lawyer. I hope he posts the results here.

Also, I think it might be wise for people to mail Heliopan and alert them to what activities the current distributor is engaged in. Here is the email:

info@heliopan.de

We can only hope that Heliopan will realize how they have been hoodwinked by HP, fire them, and get a competent, non-arrogant, legal-acting distributor...

I buy my Heliopan and Linhof gear directly from Europe. I'm willing to return it there for repair work. Customs problems? Nope, never. Bob likes to try to intimidate people with that whole "we are working with customs" yada yada yada, but do you really think customs bothered to check that polarizer shipped to NYC? Yeah right! Try the term 'dirty nuke' to see where the priorites of customs are correctly placed.

But... I buy my Heliopan and Linhof gear from Europe--not only because it is cheaper--but because I refuse to put a single cent into the pockets of people of the likes of Saloman.

Email me direct if you want my contacts in Europe.

[Mark Farnsworth]

If an item is purchased from a US authorized retailer, and sold by a customer in the US, then no restriction would apply on its resale. Bob is using the technicality (in bad faith) that the item is being sold by someone in Canada and would thus be imported to US (even though it was originally imported and sold by HP Marketing).

Under US law, a registered trademarked item such as Heliopan, that was purchased for personal use, may be legally resold after 1 year.

Unfortunately, HP Marketing has made eBay an unwitting accomplice to this injustice.

[Lyle Aldridge]

I hesitate to add to this thread, but I'm an IP lawyer who has some knowledge on the underlying issue, and hope I can clarify what is going on. This is an esoteric dispute about archaic statutes, and no one would have paid attention to any of it a month ago.

There is a provision of the 1930 Tariff Act that makes it illegal to import foreign-made goods bearing a trademark registered under the Trademark Act then in effect, unless the owner of the trademark has given permission. Both the Trademark Act and common manufacturing and import practices have changed drastically since then. Foreign manufacturers and their authorized importers have been arguing with the Customs Service about the current meaning of the law for several decades. They contend that the law prohibits importation of gray market goods. The Customs Service disagrees, pointing out that the Trademark Act in effect in 1930 was repealed in 1946, and that the goods that offended under the old Trademark Act were completely counterfeit goods, not genuine products. They take the position that the statute applies only to importation of counterfeit products, and that there is nothing unlawful about gray market imports. So far, the courts have mostly agreed with Customs, based on common sense, and on the fact that the Tariff Act explicitly refers (by Title and Section) only to trademarks registered under the old, repealed Trademark Act.

This difference of opinion is still working its way to the Supreme Court, and until it is decided there, it sets up an unfortunate situation where trademark owners are forced to take what look like unreasonable steps to preserve their position in the controversy. They feel they must take a strong stand on every apparent instance of unauthorized importation, lest they be accused of “waiving” the protection that they have spent millions trying to get the courts to recognize. It unfortunate that people like the Photo.net contributor get entangled in this stuff, especially since I personally agree with the Customs Service on the issue. But, life does have its speed bumps, and this one hardly seems worth the emotion that it has generated.

[John Downie]

It is hard for me to imagine that the standard required to avoid waiving one's trademark rights includes going after single individuals selling single items on ebay. I just do not believe that a court would decide in this way.

[Ellis Vener]

Having just readthrough this entire tempest in a puddle makes me so mad I just want to do something right now...

Like go out and by something marketed in the USA by HP Marketing. especially if is from Heliopan.

There is absolutely nothing wrng with a individual or a company protecting their interests. yet certain people here seem to think that is immoral if not unethical. They have to do as a matter of course. As would you if you were in business.

as for having some kind of "boycott" of the products HP Marketing imports, I'd like to see the hands of the Schneider, Lee filters, Sinar, Toyo, Ebony & even Arca-Swiss reprsentatives who come to this forum at all --much less on a regular basis --to help photographers.

[Corwyn]

Seems to me the crux of the matter is this:

"Yes this means that some individual outside the US can not export Heliopan to the US without violating our laws. That individual may be simply what he seems - a person who wants to sell a personal possession. However we have no way of knowing if that, in fact, is true or if he is using this as a means to bypass the Trademark rules and regulations."

Is Bob saying that, since he can't determine whether the individual is selling legally or not, he is acting as if it was illegal? That the person was in fact guilty until proven innocent. Or more precisely guilty because checking for innocence was too hard?

Thank You Kindly.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I recently purchased a Classic Camera from a dealer out of the UK, when I got the package, it had been opened and rewrapped with a wrapping that had 'inspected by US Customs', on it.

The camera seemed to work ok, but I had no idea what 'inspected' meant, and you definitely can mess up the shutter cocking mechanism by attempting to cock the shutter without having film in the camera, so I called Customs to ask them if they had tried to operate the camera and possibly breaking it with the idea of making a claim, they laughed, and said that they take something out of box, look at it, and that's it, they said they were concerned with bombs and drugs and terrorism and were swamped with those kinds of issues and they emphasized that they didn't have the time to be concerned with anything else.

[Gem Singer]

That was the fastest action by the moderator(s) I have ever experienced on any of the forums. Why don't you delete the ENTIRE thread and pretend it never happened?

[QT Luong]

Eugene, I've been tempted to do so several times, especially considering that the
way the question was asked ( "Anyone else unhappy with this situation?")
sounded like a flame bait. This
would have saved me quite a bit of time, but I thought that with a few exceptions replies were civil, and there was some useful information it in, as there were a lot of misperceptions. By the way, Bob has agreed to sign as "Bob Salomon - HP Marketing" (although, as I explaned earlier, I didn't feel that this was an obligation on his part), and this will be also reflected in the archive as soon as some technical details are figured it out.

[Bruce G. MacNeil]

Looks like HP Marketing is mired in a lot of arrogance. Rather common.

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

hmmm...came across this thread from David Nebenzahl's reference in the rec.photo.equipment.large-format newsgroup. Can't really understand the brouhaha over this issue. First, congrats to the moderator for maintaining the thread. Second, the issue seems to me is not so much the unique policy of one singular company as it is the concern of a company seeking enforcement of a legal matter common to all companies in the same situation...viz, owning the legal trademark of an item manufactured outside the US. Notwithstanding HP Marketing being perhaps more vigorous than others in seeking enforcing what it views as its legal rights on the one hand and on the other hand the indignation and emotions of those who are dismayed by this vigor, the key question seems to me the legal one. The issue can be/should be easily enough settled without the gnashing of teeth and displays of emotion seen in this thread by simply taking the matter to the US courts...those who are upset by HP Marketing's actions can take the issue there. However, I do believe that there are plenty of court precedents where even companies engaged in purely domestic situations have prevailed in their efforts to protect what they view as their legal rights...Disney and Coca Cola come quickly to mind. Perhaps - just perhaps - this situation would be found by the courts to be an exception.

[Julio Fernandez]

Ellis: Are you the same Ellis Venner that not that long ago launched into one of the nastiest personal diatribes against Bob Salomon? I remembered it too well and was apalled at its vehemence. What way does the wind blow this time, Ellis?

That aside, the use or abuse of trademarks by distributors is a veiled ruse to impose abusive monopolistic practices on consumers which have one simple objective: gouging the public. To whom does the Heliopan trademark belong? Logically that should be Heliopan in Germany. However, it seems that in the US it belongs to HP Marketing and that without its ownership, HP Marketing would have to abide by market forces. Capitalistic economies depend on the market for regulation, but this gap in trademark law allows distributors to avoid market regulation. Distributor's defend their position arguing that high pricing pays for service and advertising. That premise does not fly: In a free market, the market itself defines for sellers and manufacturers what costs and prices are viable. The law does protect manufacturers from dumping by foreign firms, but the idea that the law should grant distributors of foreign products a monopoly so that they can pay for service and advertising is illogical. In fact, the law has broken many monopolies to protect consumers and it is time that it does so with regards to distributed products. Until that happens, consumers can use their own power over the market to send a message to monopolistic distributors: buy elsewhere. Lyel Aldridge's legal opinion in this thread states that the sale of grey market products is not unlawful in the US. Yes, the courts should issue clear rulings on this but the suggestion that anyone who does not agree with the abuse of trade mark law should take the issue to court is idiotic nonsense. Oh yes, the guy that tried selling one Heliopan filter in the US should fork out thousands in legal fees just for a matter of principle? The photographic industry in the US is rife with this misuse of trademark law. Photographers remember, it is your money.

[Ellis Vener]

That aside, the use or abuse of trademarks by distributors is a veiled ruse to impose abusive monopolistic practices on consumers which have one simple objective: gouging the public.

There is no monoply being practiced. You don't like HP marketing's practices? Buy from another company that offers similar products.

To whom does the Heliopan trademark belong? Logically that should be Heliopan in Germany. However, it seems that in the US it belongs to HP Marketing and that without its ownership, HP Marketing would have to abide by market forces....o whom does the Heliopan trademark belong? Logically that should be Heliopan in Germany. However, it seems that in the US it belongs to HP Marketing and that without its ownership, HP Marketing would have to abide by market forces.

Heliopan's direct customers are not individual photographers or even indivual stores. Heliopan's customers are the distrbution companies they have signed contracts with. I don't know the specifics because I don't work for either company but I have little doubt that HP marketing has licensed the Heliopan trademark in the USA and that Heliopan is very happy with HP Marketing being their partner. if they are not happy with the job HP is doing when the agreement has expired Heliopan will try to find a partner that does a better job and offers a more advantageous relationship. That is the free market economy at work. Igyuarentee that if Helipan Germany was dissatisfied with the way HP Marketing is handling this situation they would tell them to back off.

The law does protect manufacturers from dumping by foreign firms ... consumers can use their own power over the market to send a message to monopolistic distributors: buy elsewhere.

That is right: you can buy elsewhere. There is at least one other legitimate direct importer in the USA of the stuff made in Heliopan & Rodenstock's factories, but the products you buy from them will not have either Rodenstock or Heliopan's name on them. Or you can buy "gray market" from a store outside of the USA. just don't expect it to get the warranty serviced in the USA. You pays your money and you takes your chances. That is also the free market in action.

Yes, the courts should issue clear rulings on this but the suggestion that anyone who does not agree with the abuse of trade mark law should take the issue to court is idiotic nonsense. Yes, the courts should issue clear rulings on this but the suggestion that anyone who does not agree with the abuse of trade mark law should take the issue to court is idiotic nonsense.

No it is not nonsense, it is part of being a civilization that is governed by laws. Or do you want anarchy? And if he wants to make that fight and can find a lawyer who thinks he has a leg to stand on, he is welcome to do so. Law like all living things, evolves. If no one puts pressure on it to change, it doesn't.

I'd also like to point out the same patent, trademark & copyright laws that protect companies like Heliopan, HP marketing, Disney , etc., also protect you as an inventor, business person & artist.

[bglick]

Ellis, you wrote.....

I'd also like to point out the same patent, trademark & copyright laws that protect companies like Heliopan, HP marketing, Disney , etc., also protect you as an inventor, business person & artist.

Ellis, I think you are confusing Julio's position here. The protection of a patent or a work of art is to protect the inventor / artist from others counterfeiting / reproducing their work. Quite often, this protection is what motivates inventors / artists to invest the time and money required to produce marketable products. This was a very sensible approach to enticing innovation and art. History has proven its worthiness.

However, HP is not inventing anything, they are re sellers of a manufactured product. No different than a retailer who buys direct from a manufacturer, they are a re seller of that product. Large Retailers do not get trade marks on designer clothes they re sell. So HP should be like any other re seller of manufactured products. But instead, HP tries to become exclusive and in the case of Heliopan, grab the trademark for USA, which I assume Helopan has agreed to. This is HP's perogative, however, market forces will still eventually sort this out. The photographic community being so small, it seems to me, this practice leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth about HP's policy towards their ultimate customers - photographers. You can't argue that you are one of the few supporting HP in this thread.... there does seem to be a consensus of opinion here. Does this prevent HP from suing someone, or legally or illegally stopping someone from making a sale on ebay, no, but it sure makes a big impact on the community. In the end, it all boils down to pricing, which I addressed in an earlier post.

[Ellis Vener]

Large Retailers do not get trade marks on designer clothes they re sell. So HP should be like any other re seller of manufactured products.

No but some do acquire the licenses to be the exclusive dealer for that product in a certain region.

But instead, HP tries to become exclusive and in the case of Heliopan, grab the trademark for USA, which I assume Helopan has agreed to.HP marketing isn't a retailer, they are a distributor who has paid Heliopan for the license to distribute in the USA. HP Marketing is acting as Heliopan's agent. For all any of us know Heliopan or whatever company they are a subsidiary of may have insisted that HP Marketing enforce Heliopan's trademark in the USA.


This is HP's perogative, however, market forces will still eventually sort this out. Yes you are right they will. Mostly the market forces at wwork right now will kill large format photography within the next few years by making it increasingly uneconomical for them to continue manufacturing new lenses cameras & film.

There are also economics of scale involved. HP marketing probably places a n order for a certain number of filters of different types & sizes each year. This preordering lets Heliopan know how many of thse filters to make each year, which helps bring down the manufacturing cost of each individual unit. Can you imagine how much it might cost if each filter was bascially custom made and subjectto the individual whims & finances of say a fe w thousand individuals? Sure Heliopan could say: we are willignto go it alone and we will bear the cost of R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and then the distribution and customs for each individual shipment? I really don't think you'll want to pay those prices. So manufacturers ahve set up networks of distributors , who in turn of networks of retail outlets they sell to.

Listen: I like getting a good deal as much as the next guy does, but with every opportunity comes a cost.

[Jon_2416]

Thanks for deleting my response to Ellis, QT. But I do believe Bob is deceitful.

Eugene, I've been tempted to do so several times, especially considering that the way the question was asked ( "Anyone else unhappy with this situation?") sounded like a flame bait.

I didn't think it was a flame bait--there was enough of a disclaimer. What is wrong with asking if others have had bad experiences with a distributor?

This would have saved me quite a bit of time, but I thought that with a few exceptions replies were civil, and there was some useful information it in, as there were a lot of misperceptions.

Misperceptions? Such as the questionable legality of Saloman's actions?

By the way, Bob has agreed to sign as "Bob Salomon - HP Marketing" (although, as I explaned earlier, I didn't feel that this was an obligation on his part)

I do! There is a direct conflict of interest in Salomon not identifying himself when he is making recomendations on gear. A matter of ethics.

[John Downie]

This has nothing to do with NAFTA, which deals with items made in NA.