Ebay problem. You guys have got to read this.

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"

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

gallery

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.

Bafoons!!

Hope you contacted the winner in time to at least complete the transaction.

Ken

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

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. ;)

Sounds like Sikorsky's got too many lawyers with not enough real work to do.

Bill 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.

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.

"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.

Frank

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

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.

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.

Tom

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"?

-Lasse

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.

Jay

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

gallery

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....).

Will things such as the "Gerald Ford Presidential Library" be forced to pay royalties or licensing fees, to a certain automobile manufacturer?

C-D sued GM over the Hummer grille in 2001.

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

WmB

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