Siglent They filed a "wrongful trademark claim"

[Wuerstchenhund]

I hate to say Rigol  did it to, someone mention it and a whole thread about it.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/ds1052e-removed-from-ebay/

Actually, that case is interesting:

While the vast majority of trade on our site is legitimate, we take many steps to protect our buyers from sellers who may offer items that are not authentic. One of them is to remove items reported to us as allegedly infringing through eBay's VeRO program.  In this case, we removed the listing because the owner of a copyright and/or trademark in this product has reported to us that they believe the item may not be authentic.

Note the phrase "believe the item not to be authentic".
So it seems all a company has to be is "believe" (i.e. suspect) the item is not genuine, no evidence required, and bingo, they can get away with having it taken down.
So a company could potentially claim they suspect an item to be counterfeit (and presumably be legally fine, i.e not lying), and bingo, that's good enough for Ebay.

This thread is from 2010. The situation and process for take-downs has changed quite a bit since then.

You perhaps don't even need to be the actual copyright/trademark owner to make the claim?

How about instead of speculating, you simply look at the ebay take-down process (which I already posted twice btw)?

http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html

And the NOCI:

http://pics.ebay.com/aw/pics/pdf/us/help/community/NOCI1.pdf

The answer is that anyone can file a claim, however the claimant has to issue a sworn statement (affidavit) that he is authorized to act on behalf of the rights owner.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I don't really see the crime here.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean there is none.

But even assuming there was a crime, and I'm pretty sure there isn't but even if there was, do you really think the United States of America is going to extradite some girl from China, prosecute her and toss her in jail because she made a false trademark accusation? Come on, man.

First, no, they won't have a Chinese girl extradited simply because the story of this naive female marketing graduate employee issuing take-downs on their own is most likely bogus. Second, jail time is just one of the potential consequences of anti-trust violations, others are financial penalties or an import stop of Siglent products.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill. The best anyone's going to get is some lost sales from our little group here, maybe a little slap from EBay with a stern "Cut out the nonsense", and...well, that's about it.

Aside from the question why we have laws if it's obviously acceptable to you if they're broken (and I'm sure you'd be less relaxed if this was say someone defrauding you online, or probably any other crime that affects you personally), you seem to believe that anti-competitive behavior is a petty crime, which it isn't. In fact, it's a pretty serious crime.

[madires]

But it goes on:
"Second, your market price $700 is lower than our end-user price $935. Actually, we have a lot of local distributors in the local area, in order to protect their rights and interests, we have to control the price. And I didn't see you marked your item as a used one, so we affirmed that your item is a fake."
But as I said, you can lead a horse to water...

In case you missed it, this is the exact reason why I asked Siglent this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/msg784402/#msg784402
and this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/msg784534/#msg784534

And I don't think we'll ever get any answer, because Siglent would admit that way that they have committed deliberately a few criminal offences. They can't do that because that would imply full liability and all other consequences. It's a classic process when something went wrong. First you try to ignore it, then play it down (just a few cases), an apology (it won't happen again, new employee or whatever) and only admit what's known via proven evidence.

Steve went directly to #3 (kudos for that) and tries his best to control the damage done by Siglent HQ. The real problem is within Siglent HQ. Based on their past actions I doubt that anything will change. The few victims of the "authorized resellers only" strategy will unlikely sue Siglent. The only way to make them aware that they have to change is by voting with your wallet and letting them know. Business is about money.

[SteveLy]

Come on, legal proceedings! Do it! It will make for entertaining reading. I'm sure many of us would be happy to donate a few $s for the cost. I'll pay $100 to be in that courtroom as you try to prove to the judge that anything more than a simple mistake by a junior employee has taken place for which by then you'd be more than compensated.

Sure you'll have your circumstantial evidence of ebay listings' "Used/Siglent"-search-counts from one day to the next and the suspicious wording of this email and that PM but if you seriously believe that you could get any sort of slap on the wrist let alone conviction against a company operating out of Shenzhen, you must be off your rocker.

Illegal, shmillegal. Jail time. Prove it! Come on McFly! What are you? Chicken?!

[John Coloccia]

I don't really see the crime here.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean there is none.

But even assuming there was a crime, and I'm pretty sure there isn't but even if there was, do you really think the United States of America is going to extradite some girl from China, prosecute her and toss her in jail because she made a false trademark accusation? Come on, man.

First, no, they won't have a Chinese girl extradited simply because the story of this naive female marketing graduate employee issuing take-downs on their own is most likely bogus. Second, jail time is just one of the potential consequences of anti-trust violations, others are financial penalties or an import stop of Siglent products.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill. The best anyone's going to get is some lost sales from our little group here, maybe a little slap from EBay with a stern "Cut out the nonsense", and...well, that's about it.

Aside from the question why we have laws if it's obviously acceptable to you if they're broken (and I'm sure you'd be less relaxed if this was say someone defrauding you online, or probably any other crime that affects you personally), you seem to believe that anti-competitive behavior is a petty crime, which it isn't. In fact, it's a pretty serious crime.

I DON'T think that anti-competitive behavior is a crime. You keeping saying things like "anti-trust" violations. You think Siglent is a monopoly of some sort? Not even Agilent/Keysight/Whatever could run afoul of anti-trust regulations even if they wanted to. All they did is lie to EBay. In the US, you can go to jail for a lot of stupid and ridiculous reasons, but being a sleazy businessman is generally not one of them unless you're running some kind of scheme to steal money from people.

Next we'll be trying to prosecute the Craigslist trolls that flag ads they think are overpriced or compete with their own. Sleazy? Yes. Criminal? No way.

[nctnico]

I DON'T think that anti-competitive behavior is a crime.

Fortunately it is a crime. BTW: Ask VW how they feel about that... VW likely isn't getting away with saying sorry and fixing the affected cars.

[c4757p]

We'll all look a lot less stupid if we refrain from talking about legality, on both sides of the argument, without citing sources. No, Wikipedia is not a source.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I DON'T think that anti-competitive behavior is a crime.

Wrong. It is a crime. You might want to learn a bit more about the topic instead of continuing to make wild guesses:

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices

You keeping saying things like "anti-trust" violations. You think Siglent is a monopoly of some sort? Not even Agilent/Keysight/Whatever could run afoul of anti-trust regulations even if they wanted to. All they did is lie to EBay. In the US, you can go to jail for a lot of stupid and ridiculous reasons, but being a sleazy businessman is generally not one of them unless you're running some kind of scheme to steal money from people.

Again, you're guessing to much about a topic you seem to know nothing about. For a start, anti-trust laws are not just about monopolies, and as in many other instances size doesn't matter. A starting point for you to learn so you don't have to continue guessing would be this:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

As to lying to ebay, you may want to have a read about perjury:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html

[John Coloccia]

I DON'T think that anti-competitive behavior is a crime.

Fortunately it is a crime. BTW: Ask VW how they feel about that... VW likely isn't getting away with saying sorry and fixing the affected cars.

It's only criminal in very limited circumstances where the company has significant, near monopolistic, influence in the market. I dare say that Siglent is a minor player. The only clear violation here is running afoul of the first sale doctrine, but even this may not apply because the whole trademark/counterfeit thing was a load of hooey to begin with. A reseller that was harmed significantly might have a nice lawsuit to pursue. For everyone else, it won't even be worth the stamp to fire off an angry letter. Best is to just avoid the company altogether and move on with your life.

Wuerstchenhund:
Arrogance isn't very becoming. Please take your own advice and study up on when anti-competative behavior illegal vs just being good business.

[c4757p]

He provided sources, at least.

[John Coloccia]

What sources do you need? Our laws are public. Lookup whatever you want to lookup. I don't have any magic sources. There's a difference between criminal and civil liability in the US. We prefer to throw people in jail for important reasons, like fishing without a license and smoking weed, not all this business crippy crap.   

[OldSchoolTechCorner]

I never said, or mention legal action yet and haven't even reach the point to cross that bridge yet, or considering it yet. If I was, I am not going to discuss the matter on this forum that for sure. Let them try to make it right first, which require more time then 2 days. I love hearing from both sides of an argument, but let's be more realistic

Then to read the comments about throwing people in jail part for this. I don't have words for that, as it asinise to think that and not even going to comment. Yeah what they did was wrong, not to the point anyone deserves jail time. 

I can see people go to the extreme no matter who side they are on.

How about just wait and find out details first and let Siglent get a chance to answer questions that a few asked and explain. Doesn't mean it's necessarily true, or sure be taken for face value. But let not shoot them first ether.

[OldSchoolTechCorner]

What sources do you need? Our laws are public. Lookup whatever you want to lookup. I don't have any magic sources. There's a difference between criminal and civil liability in the US. We prefer to throw people in jail for important reasons, like fishing without a license and smoking weed, not all this business crippy crap.   

I even believe that asinise and pretty extreme to throw people in jail for those reasons to. But prisons has turned into a cash cow for big business.

[AF6LJ]

What sources do you need? Our laws are public. Lookup whatever you want to lookup. I don't have any magic sources. There's a difference between criminal and civil liability in the US. We prefer to throw people in jail for important reasons, like fishing without a license and smoking weed, not all this business crippy crap.   

I even believe that asinise and pretty extreme to throw people in jail for those reasons to. But prisons has turned into a cash cow for big business.

What would you expect from a country that regards corporations as persons, with above Constitutional rights.
When was the last time one of these "persons" went to jail for murder?

[retrolefty]

I can see people go to the extreme no matter who side they are on.

 Not me, I came for the popcorn.   

[Wuerstchenhund]

I DON'T think that anti-competitive behavior is a crime.

Fortunately it is a crime. BTW: Ask VW how they feel about that... VW likely isn't getting away with saying sorry and fixing the affected cars.

It's only criminal in very limited circumstances where the company has significant, near monopolistic, influence in the market.

That is simply not true. Some lecture for a start:

http://business-law.lawyers.com/small-business-law/antitrust-for-small-businesses.html

"Many small businesses think that antitrust applies only to big business, and it’s one area of law they just don’t need to worry about. Don’t fall into that trap.

There are three common misconceptions about antitrust.

One is that only behemoth companies the size of Microsoft need to worry about antitrust. Wrong. While some big companies have grabbed the media spotlight lately, smaller companies such as Pikes Peak Towing Association and Rocky Mountain River Outfitters have faced antitrust charges in Colorado.

Another fallacy is that antitrust enforcement is dead. Also wrong. Both federal and state antitrust enforcement agencies stay busy identifying and prosecuting potential antitrust violations.

The third misconception is that only top executives face any risk. While it’s true that top managers are more likely to be held personally liable for antitrust violations, anyone representing the business can violate the antitrust laws on behalf of the company – and be found personally liable."


I also hope you don't want to suggest that VW has a monopoly, either in the US or anywhere else.

Wuerstchenhund:
Arrogance isn't very becoming. Please take your own advice and study up on when anti-competative behavior illegal vs just being good business.

Thanks, but I've done that already a while ago (and regularly have to keep me fresh, as it very much touches things I occasionally have to deal with).

You also shouldn't mix up openness and frankness with arrogance, especially when you seem to make stuff up as you go along. If you don't want me to tell you that you're wrong then I'd suggest you do some research and get to know the basics instead of arguing things only you believes are true.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Then to read the comments about throwing people in jail part for this. I don't have words for that, as it asinise to think that and not even going to comment. Yeah what they did was wrong, not to the point anyone deserves jail time. 

Although we don't know the extend of their activity it's unlikely for anyone from Siglent to face jail time. The most probable penalties would be financial (fines), plus they might be put under supervision (something like probation) where their compliance with US laws is checked by an independent auditor.

[John Coloccia]

That link supports my case, thanks. It just notes that one company, even a small one, can reach the threshold in a limited market. Read your own sources. Everyone else can read for themselves too and see how it applies. Anti-competition/anti-trust laws invarariably have some element of cooperation between different companies or a single company with major influence in that particular market.

[EEVblog]

How about instead of speculating, you simply look at the ebay take-down process (which I already posted twice btw)?
http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html
And the NOCI:
http://pics.ebay.com/aw/pics/pdf/us/help/community/NOCI1.pdf
The answer is that anyone can file a claim, however the claimant has to issue a sworn statement (affidavit) that he is authorized to act on behalf of the rights owner.

I know that. That doesn't stop people filing the claim.
In Rigol's case it may very well have been that dealer people speculated about, even if they had no right to do so and did so fraudulently.

[EEVblog]

We'll all look a lot less stupid if we refrain from talking about legality, on both sides of the argument, without citing sources. No, Wikipedia is not a source.

Yes I agree. I think people should refrain from making statements of "legal fact" in this thread without proper evidence.

[nbritton]

Yes, it is illegal, and this is not how that works. Ebay doesn't take down listings for whatever reason. The only time they will take down a listing is when it violates ebay T&Cs (these are assessed internally, and often things go wrong with that, but that's a different story) or when it is illegal to sell the item (i.e. stolen or counterfeit), and for ebay to act on counterfeits you have to be the rights holder and have to sign an affidavit, which is a sworn stamenet of fact. Lying on an affidavit is perjury. That's a crime.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html

"If an item or listing infringes on your intellectual property rights, you can report the alleged infringement by submitting a Notice of Claimed Infringement (NOCI) to eBay's VeRO program...."

The NOCI looks like this, although ebay now uses an electronic version:
http://pics.ebay.com/aw/pics/pdf/us/help/community/NOCI1.pdf

It states:

"The information in this Notice of Claimed Infringement is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the Intellectual Property Owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. "

This is pretty serious stuff.

DMCA is also a legal avenue to get stuff taken down from websites and places like ebay, but we are not sure if this is the case here?

No, it's got nothing to do with DCMA, or DCMA takedowns on websites like Youtube and such. This is a completely different matter. What Siglent did is an anti-trust violation, not a DCMA issue.

Well if that's the case, my uncle works as a manager in the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, you can write to him here: [email removed, PM me if you want it.]

[retrolefty]

I seems a bunch of frustrated EEs here feel they would have done better off studying and practicing law?   

[smbaker]

Every person who has ever used a forum knows all you need to practice law is access to Google!

[Macbeth]

You forgot the barrack-room too.

[retrolefty]

Every person who has ever used a forum knows all you need to practice law is access to Google!

 And an agenda with narrative to drive home.

 As fellow members all we really need are the 'facts' and let that guide us in our opinion of and personal relationship with Siglent for future transactions. No lawyers, real or armchair types, required, really.

 If the Siglent wants to protect/save their brand reputation (at least on this forum) they will. If not then it's their loss not ours.