I am still shaken up and confused. Today I got an e-mail from eBay telling me that my selling has been restricted due to trade mark violation. I am so shocked, everything I sell is real and legally obtained. I hold 100% positive feedback.
I called them and provided a whole bunch of financial documents to prove that I do in fact get this product from a reputable source. Custom clearance, paypal records, invoices, you name it, I have it.
Turns out that what got their attention are words in the titles such as “mock” and “Imitation”. I explained to the woman on the phone that these words refer to the pattern, like let’s say “mock stocking tights” or “hold up imitation” design. It has nothing to do with the authenticity of the brand.
Both parties agreed that I did nothing wrong and that it is simply a misunderstanding. However, they told me that this is an educational experience for me and I am still punished for a week. I’m kind of struggling to wrap my mind around it, as less sales for me means less money in eBay’s pocket too.
I guess I am going to spend a week “educating myself” as eBay put it, without being able to list any new items until Sept 13th.
In case you want to see my eBay, here it is. You can still buy stuff, it’s just that I can’t list anything new for a week, that’s all. http://www.ebay.ca/usr/fantasystockings
I was surprised to come across a scam story online that happened in 1984 in United States. Pittsburgh newspaper published an article that seemed more like actions of a street scam agency rather than an actual hosiery corporation. I wonder how someone would get so desperate to sell their product in order to use such tactics. Would love to hear your opinion!
Newspaper Article on Pantyhose Scam
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – May 4, 1984
Hartford, Conn. (AP) – State officials said yesterday they are going to court to stop a “pantyhose scam” they claim has been perpetrated on Connecticut residents.
Attorney General Joseph I. Liberman and Consumer Protection Commissioner Mary M. Heslin said Hosiery Corporation of America, based in Philadelphia, mailed packets containing four pairs of pantyhose to an undetermined number of Connecticut households.
Recipients were told one pair was a gift and they would have to pay for the other three by a deadline or their credit status would be damaged.
“This pantyhose scam is a flagrant violation of both state and federal laws, which make it clear that an unsolicited merchandise sent through the mail is an unconditional gift and can be kept by the recipient,” said Lieberman.
Liberman said the state filed suit against the company seeking a court order to prevent it from continuing the scheme. The suit also seeks restitution for everyone who paid for the hosiery.
In addition, the attorney general said, the suit targets Retrieval Masters Credit Bureau Inc. of New York, which sought to collect on the “overdue” accounts.
“While the collection agency is not being faulted for attempting to collect what it perceived were overdue accounts, we are suing them because they do not have a licence to act as a collection agency in this state,” Helsin said.
Liberman and Mrs. Heslin urged those who received the mailings to contact her office in Hartford.