General > General Technical Chat

Fluke took down my Ebay listing for Trademark infringement

<< < (10/11) > >>

thm_w:

--- Quote from: ebastler on March 24, 2024, 03:38:09 pm ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 24, 2024, 03:15:21 am ---Fluke have reported and had the ebay listing for my EEVblog meter removed because they didn't like that I dared mention Fluke in the listing.

--- End quote ---

You didn't say -- did you use "Fluke" in the title of your listing, or somewhere in the description?

I agree with others that using it in the title amounts to keyword stuffing and should be discouraged. Using it in the description, on the other hand, e.g. for a factual performance comparison, would be fine with me -- but seems to be prohibited as well by the ebay policy you quoted?

--- End quote ---

It has to be in the description: https://www.ebay.com/itm/223244201244

99% of the time I don't search by description so I don't really care what goes in there, as long as its not just a random list of generated keywords and is a valid description.

Red Squirrel:
Wow that's ridiculous that it even counts as copyright infringement, it's simply mentioning the name. Should count as fair use.  It seems IP laws now days have completely lost their purpose and they're just used to be predatory against others.

ebastler:

--- Quote from: thm_w on March 25, 2024, 09:47:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 24, 2024, 03:38:09 pm ---You didn't say -- did you use "Fluke" in the title of your listing, or somewhere in the description?

--- End quote ---
It has to be in the description: https://www.ebay.com/itm/223244201244

--- End quote ---

Not sure how you reach that conclusion? That must be a "sanitized" version of the item listing, edited after Fluke's complaint. It does not include Fluke in either the title or the description as far as I can see.

By the way, Dave @EEVblog -- the link given in the item description, www.eevblog.com/121gw, does not seem to work?

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: ebastler on March 27, 2024, 07:10:15 am ---By the way, Dave @EEVblog -- the link given in the item description, www.eevblog.com/121gw, does not seem to work?

--- End quote ---

Thanks, fixed.

Brumby:
Yes, it is certainly clear to me that the problem is one of saying a specific competitor product is worse.  Use the word "Fluke" and you're asking for attention.

However, if you were to make an indirect reference - one that 99% of people in the industry would immediately pick up on, without mentioning the actual name at all - I would think you might be safe.

There have been examples of corporate criticism from journalists attracting strong legal responses.  I believe there was one example where IBM was the target with some critical, but restrained material. However, when IBM came down on them, the journalist switched to talking about a mythical "Big Blue".  Readers who would have an interest in the subject matter would instantly recognise this reference.  Of even more interest is, that because the reference was no longer directly mentioning IBM, the journalist was able to really let loose and carved into Big Blue - with absolutely no legal worries.  As a result, "Big Blue" suffered far more than they would have if they had left the journalist alone.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod