I checked on Ebay after reading this and there seems to be a lot of non rdg related Myford stuff for sale, some very near end time, so plenty of time for Ebay to have removed it.
Having said that, if this is true, I will never deal with them and recommend others to do the same. At very least, it's restraint of legitimate trade and very underhand business practice. Perhaps they bit off more than they could chew in terms of money spent. It costs a fortune to tie up capital with large amounts of stock.
Perhaps if everyone here emailed a link to this group / thread to rdg, it might make them think again, or issue some weaseling apology...
Using the word "Monopoly" may be a bit iffy, I'm sure Waddingtons (or their successors) might object? Since Prince changed his name to a symbol with the words "The artist formally named Prince" can't Gert put something like "To fit .. and the a two fingered smiley.. The company formally know by a capital "M"?"
Ouch, Ronalds bosses might chase that one.
I would think that RDG will be looking deeply into their orifices after the various forum exposures that this one has created yer worship.
I've had the same Vero or whatever ebay call it slap on the wrist over an aftermarket Amal part I sold on evilbay once.
The part is not a copy of an Amal part but is rather an enhanced aftermarket part designed specificially but not exclusively for the trials market and I have manufactured it on and off for the last 25 years.
To even use the words "for Amal" is enough for their (Burlen) "Anal" lawyers to get a listing pulled and a strike on the account.
My answer was "OK, do what you like, I'll just sell elsewhere!"
It's all a knee jerk reaction by Ebay over RDG's ham fisted method of controlling the Myford name.
Ebay have defined 'standards' for listing, there is there standard as regards Trade Names.
****************
Use brand names appropriately
If you're selling a brand name product, you can mention the brand name in your listing and include photos that you've taken of the item. However:
Don't suggest that you're an official dealer/reseller if you're not
Don't use the manufacturer's text, images (including photos) or logo unless you're authorised to do so by the manufacturer
Example: If you're selling an Acme brand television, you can mention the Acme brand in your description. But you're not allowed to display a separate image of the Acme logo or state that you're an Acme dealer if you're not authorised by Acme to do so
You can use 'compatible with', 'fits' or 'for' before a brand name in the title of your listing if the item is specifically designed to be compatible with products of that brand
Don't use 'compatible with', 'fits' or 'for' before a brand name in the title of your listing to describe items that are universally compatible ro that are compatible with an entire product class
Thank you for your recent listing on eBay. Unfortunately, your item(s) breached one or more of our policies and had to be removed from the site. Any associated fees have been credited to your account and any bidders on this item have been notified.
The rights owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the rights owner, MyFord Ltd, notified eBay that this listing breaches intellectual property rights. When eBay receives a report of this type of breach, we remove the listing to comply with the law.
Why did we remove your listing?
Your listing was reported for using a brand name without the right's owner's permission.
*****************************************
Lastly they say we were using a brand name without the owners permission but there standards say we can IF we put compatible, fits or for in front of it.
Where in those three adverts they have mentioned does it infringe their 'standards' ?
Can you sell a roof rack for a Vauxhall ? Can you sell an oil filter that fits a Ford ? Yes you can and if it wasn't allowed the big industry would have jumped on this years ago.
Slightly ironic in that there is almost certainly no other current, commercial, manufacturer of those dividing plates in the entire world :-|
The lads from Hebden bridge/Mytholmroyd aren't doing themselves any favours. especially since they will need some local manufacturing capability if their stated plans for the Myford product are to happen.
The other thing that confuses me is that I see references to "MyFord". What has that got to do with "Myford"?
I suppose that if we're being technical about this it's Myford Limited that are getting Ebay to take this action. It's a different legal entity from RDG Tools Ltd. However we all know that it's the same people who are behind it and it is shoddy.
Whilst this is my favoured forum online I'd strongly suggest that making this point in other places would help. I personally despise the Model Engineer website because they fell into the trap of creating about 30 different "sections" and life is too damn short to read through hoping to find something useful. However the "Manual Machine Tools" section would be appropriate. And the big US site will make sure that RDG and Myford's folly in line of attack gets to the top end of the search results quickly
Alan from RDG has recently replied on the ME forum and made it clear that it's personal. The way Ebay works in that you have to fill a form in called a VeRO and this has to be done manually and for each item you want removed.
It is not an automatic process.
I feel very flatted that the 8 items we sell that are Myford related are causing RDG / Myford so much grief.
Long / short is all they are getting is bad press, so far not one post in support. Also after all the explanation not one reference on why Jim Marshall who only sells genuine second hand Myford parts has been roped into this farce.
(b)the use of indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services, or other characteristics of goods or services, or
(c)the use of the trade mark where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service (in particular, as accessories or spare parts),
provided the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters."
As far as I can tell there is no infringement in John's use of the Myford trademark.
It's also not passing off or misrepresentation. So there is no legal requirement on eBay to remove John's listings. I think there is a legal requirement on eBay to _not_ remove the listings, but this is very much more complex.
However John could certainly sue RDG/Myford, and win. An injunction preventing RDG/myford from asking eBay to remove the listings should be easy to get, if a little expensive.
Peter Fairbrother (not a lawyer, just a sometime legal analyst)
It's a very interesting thread here and more so on the Model Engineer forum. Over there Alan Dickinson from RDG/Myford came on site to defend his stance (brave, I'll admit) After a beating from forum members he gave ground and said that no more Myford parts from John Stevenson ('s wife) or Jim Marshall would be removed from Ebay. This gave a qualified "hooray" but then people piled in reminding RDG/Myford of their double standards and that they shouldn't remove any part from Ebay correctly and lawfully described and certainly not whilst RDG sell Myford rip-off stuff. Nobody liked the RDG/Myford stance, even the limited concessions.
Two things really come into my mind here. Never under-estimate the power of crowds and communication, be that toppling a foreign dicatator or dealing with an unreasonable supplier. Large brands now spend fortunes on "social media monitoring" to avoid losing brand strength in these skirmishes. Second is that Google is smarter than all of us. When I came to this page via "Google Groups" the side bar of contextual advertising offered me a Trademark lawyer.
Another bone of contention with ebay is the pigging advertising on pages that THEY are already making money from us for! Still there is a nice off switch - I've removed flash :) Pages now load a lot quicker ... I only use google groups via email so avoid the advertising there anyway.
ebay and paypal are the sort of monopoly that HAS to be broken up, or at least actually monitored by an independent body who can say no when they do things that are actually illegal? It is not fair that they can unilaterally decide on things with no appeals process, but there again they are a financial institute, so think that they are above the law anyway :)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.