Ebay problem. You guys have got to read this.

Recently I sold a Revell Sikorsky CH-53G and Bell on Ebay.This item was sold
and then I got this email:We would like to let you know that we removed your
3157114912 Revell 1/72 Sikorsky CH-53G & Bell 412 RAF/K
because a Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Program participant 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 VeRO Program
participant directly at:
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
eBay is available to answer questions, but since it is the VeRO
Program participant that requested the removal of your listings, we
encourage you to contact them first.
For more information on the VeRO Program, and a list of VeRO Program
participant About Me pages, please visit:
formatting link
formatting link

Thank you for your cooperation.
Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department)
eBay Inc
What the heck. There are presently 21 Sikorsky models for sale right
now on ebay. I sent a email to Sikorsky because it give there email. They do
not have an About me page. I wonder if some Sikorsky guy's job is to check
out ebay auctions all day. What do you guys think?
Reply to
Steve Jahn
Loading thread data ...
Well, I would just mis-spell the name a little (happens all the time and most guys dont even know it). I think Sicorsci would get the idea across!! Ray Lloyd IPMS#36878 FREMONT HORNETS "If the enemy is in range, so are you"
Reply to
Wow, interesting. Wonder if this will basically effect all of the various trade names on a site like eBay. Rob Gronovius Visit my motor pool in the
formatting link
Reply to
Rob Gronovius
Sounds like there has been a bumper crop in copyright lawyers that don't know the difference between a illegal product and a knock-off.
Hope you contacted the winner in time to at least complete the transaction.
Reply to
Ken Hartlen
I think someone (one of the other 21?) ratted on you because you cost him bidders, i.e. additional money bid on HIS auction. Plain and simple. M. J. Rudy snipped-for-privacy@localnet.com OR snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com
formatting link
Reply to
M. J. Rudy
My son has a bussiness scanning Public Domain books to CD. He sometimes sells to ebay and reciently recieved the same mail. 2 of his 8 auctions were pulled. He emailed ebay and was told to post a copyright notice on all his auctions. I think the copyright police on ebay have gone mad. ;)
formatting link
Reply to
Not that you should have to, but just leave Sikorsky out of the listing. Just use CH-53G and the lawyers can't touch it. Hub
Reply to
Hub & Diane Plott
Sounds like Sikorsky's got too many lawyers with not enough real work to do.
Bill Shuey
Reply to
William H. Shuey
And just what did you do? You wrote the word "Sikorsky"? Is that it? You posted a pic of the model? That's it? Are we getting to a point where just mentioning a name violates something? I suppose you violated Revell's copyright, too. Sounds like somebody's full of s**t.
Reply to
As I understand the law, the only "copyright" you could have possibly infringed upon might have been the use of a corporate name in a business transaction without getting that company's express permission to do so.
As I understand things any item produced for the US gov with public money is "open domain" property, so to speak...once the gov gives the ok, anyone can make one. For example, this is supposedly what allows different gun manufactuers to make the same .45 ACP pistol and call it a "Model 1911" since that was the government contract designation...at least that's the way it's been explained to me...so if you had just listed the items as "CH-53K" and "412 RAF/K" you probably would have been in the clear.
I'd be rightously P-O'd at Ebay, here - if they have such a policy, it should have been clearly and prominently stated at the time you placed your ad - I would also think that they owe you a complete list of all of the VeRO participating entities. Particularly if they reserved the right to monitor and stop both your ad and transaction as a result.
This smells of "bait and switch" to me...after all they did get to make a small amount of interest on your funds before they credited you; multiply that by how many folks? The more discussion I hear about Ebay, the less inclined I am to have anything to do with them.
Reply to
"Steve Jahn" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
I read theough several of the answeres here but then I did the obvious. I searched for "Sikorsky" under sBay - Plasric models. 51 hits. Seesm to me the guilty party is the model maker. In any case I think our entire species needs a cranial enema.
Reply to
Gray Ghost
Then I'm going to have a problem with Boeing because I have a 247 kit listed this week. This, if true, is crazy.
Bill Banaszak, MFE
Reply to
Bill Banaszak
Yup, you may...they're a bit anal on such as I've seen...
You'd think they'd be crazy for the free name recognition opportunity.
Reply to
generic and diluted like
after the Hummer folks
Dunno if Jeep had actually trademarked the grill back then. This was before corporate image protection had reached the level it would in the mid 80s. And besides, at the time the Hummer originated, Jeep and AM General (the maker of the Hummer) were both owned by AMC.
Reply to
Tom Hiett
Certainly. Stating "Revell 1/72 Sikorsky CH-53G & Bell 412 RAF/K" should be equivalent to saying: "These model kits made by Revell can be used to construct models of the CH-53G helicopter made by Sikorsky and the model 412 helicopter, made by Bell, and used by RAF." That is a factual statement, and I can't see how it can be a violation of any trademarks.
Don't you have freedom of speech in the USA anymore? Is it forbidden to utter the name of a company unless the utterance is explicitly approved by same company?
Absurd! Disgusting and absurd!
For that matter, I find it equally distasteful, that for example Tamiya puts "Boeing" on a box with an F-15. Or has Boeing actually produced any F-15s after assimilating McDonnell-Douglas?
What will be next: the "Boeing DC-3"?
Reply to
Lasse Hilleroe Petersen
I didn't notice much in the way of F15 swag around Boeing, but they do seem to have a hard on for the F/A18 and it's use by the Blue Angels.
I was just in the Boeing store at KBFI last month and half the store was F/A18 + Blue Angles stuff.
Reply to
Jay Beckman
Hmm, I wonder if the Hasbro toy company is going to jump on the bandwagon and prevent United States servicemen from being referred to as "G.I.s"? Rob Gronovius Visit my motor pool in the
formatting link
Reply to
Rob Gronovius
Yes...but remember that the "freedom of speech" clause really just means that the Government can't pass legislation to infinge upon anyone's "free speech". If a private corporation wants to be totally anal, and molest citizens with annoying nuissance lawsuits, or threaten to do such.....that does not fall under the "free speech" clause. Private companies can act like "jerks"....and up til now...."acting like a jerk" is not against the law (unfortunately....).
Reply to
Greg Heilers
Will things such as the "Gerald Ford Presidential Library" be forced to pay royalties or licensing fees, to a certain automobile manufacturer?
Reply to
Greg Heilers
C-D sued GM over the Hummer grille in 2001.
formatting link

Not to be outdone, GM is suing Avanti Motors over their Studebaker SUV.
formatting link

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Reply to

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.