Hey. Im just having an argument with a friend over this. What would happen if I opened a telemarketing company to sell designer jeans for example. However I am purchasing them from an overseas company at a price that seems to good to be true, making me think that they are knockoffs. Also the company operates as a dropshipper. We are processing credit card payments and wiring the money to the company also offshore. However the company is willing to sign a contract of legitimacy for the product to show in a written form that I have been assured that these are legitimate products. Now.. if down the line it turns out that they ARE knockoffs. What type of legal ramifications does the legitimate telemarketing company face? is it just a money issue with the copyright holder for lost revenue? Is the legitimacy document enough to eliminate any sort of criminal charges towards the company for selling knockoff jeans? I would think that having that document would show that the company had reasonable doubt to suspect that they are legitimate. Again this is all hypothetical we were getting into an argument over it and I thuoght I would post it here to see what the smart people here have to say
This is what will get you in trouble.. Can you be reasonably expected to believe that these legitimate products for that price?? The document is only worth slightly more than toilet paper.. I'm in the jewelry business and I could have paperwork all the way back to God saying that the diamond I'm selling is "real".. But if it's not I'm still legally responsible because I sold it..
Any reasonable judge, if it went that far, is going to tell you not to pee on their leg and tell them it's raining. It's like punching your little brother in the face and defending yourself by saying your sister gave you permission to do it.
You could possibly be liable for contributory or vicarious trademark infringement. Lack of knowledge may not be a defense due to Willful Blindness. http: //en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Willful_blindness Actually, in some cases you could even be liable if you're just operating a marketplace where others are infringing by selling. See Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction, http: // www .law.cornell. edu/ copyright/cases/76_F3d_259.htm "The Shapiro court looked at the two lines of cases it perceived as most clearly relevant. In one line of cases, the landlord-tenant cases, the courts had held that a landlord who lacked knowledge of the infringing acts of its tenant and who exercised no control over the leased premises was not liable for infringing sales by its tenant. See e.g. Deutsch v. Arnold, 98 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1938); c.f. Fromott v. Aeolina Co., 254 F.2d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 1918). In the other line of cases, the so-called "dance hall cases," the operator of an entertainment venue was held liable for infringing performances when the operator (1) could control the premises and (2) obtained a direct financial benefit from the audience, who paid to enjoy the infringing performance. See e.g. Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 238 U.S. 191, 198-199 (1931); Dreamland Ballroom, Inc. v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1929)."
No matter what someone else tells you... [e.g. "it's ok to kill that guy because I'm his legal executioner"... I'll put it in writing... here you go... now you can kill him legally --those things do not change the fact that you yourself were in the wrong] if you yourself are selling "knockoffs"... you yourself are liable... CASE CLOSED... "You are earning revenue illegally"... and that's the crime you would be called to defend against. ...giving up every penny you made to the legit owners seems "righteous" in this case... with interest and punitive damages to boot. You can in turn "sue those that knocked you off" for damages that you incurred"... but the first question you are going to get nailed with is "as a legit businessman yourself... interested in making a "for a profit" why would you think some other legit business wouldn't be interested "in the same thing"?
BTW think "NAPSTER"... many of the kids that used Napster were doing what they were told to... share songs - it free... And many of them (and their parents) paid damages for that ignorance.