Unmistakably, the section of the public that knowingly purchases counterfeit product enables the counterfeit industries to exist, and furthermore, is held virtually unaccountable for the costs wrought on the other stakeholder classes (i.e., online hosts, IPROs, the seller class, and government).
To that end, the interests of the buyer class are consistent with those of IPROs (i.e., achieving safe Internet commerce in authentic products) and those of online hosts and sellers (i.e., encouraging an efficient and affordable channel of commerce).
As an online communication services editor, eBay was charged with numerous duties to ensure that its service was not used for 'objectionable purposes.' Chief among these duties were: 1) eBay's responsibility to request that vendors on its website specify and display sufficient information that guaranteed the authenticity of the goods they were purveying (e.g., product reference, series number, type number, authenticity certificate, etc.); and, 2) eBay was required to notify both buyers and sellers of the civil and criminal ramifications of counterfeiting, the IPROs' rights to conduct authenticity checks on the items sold, and the transmission of personal identifying data to the IPROs.
(105) Notably, European IPROs must be permitted to conduct authenticity checks on secondhand products and eBay users must substantiate the authenticity of their products.
IPROs have taken an active role in policing the marketplace for counterfeit products bearing their marks.
(i) Purpose of mandatory authentication by IPROs: First, the overriding purpose of requiring authentication of secondhand products online is to protect U.S.
(130) Moreover, Congress should find that it is inequitable for online hosts to be guarantors of the authenticity of potentially hundreds (if not thousands) of IPROs' products when the hosts are not privy to the anti-counterfeiting measures used by IPROs.
This provision would discourage online hosts from sitting on their hands, yet compel them to continue collaborating with IPROs to prevent third parties from selling counterfeit products on the hosts' websites, especially when IPROs bring the counterfeit nature of offending product to the hosts' attention.
Redirecting the lanes of online commerce through the IPROs and their inspection process would strengthen the intellectual property laws and permit the IPROs to be guarantors of the quality that their marks have come to symbolize.
Additionally, it would issue industry-specific guidelines as to appropriate online authentication deadlines for IPROs and industry, or product-specific indicia of authenticity (in consultation with IPROs and industry associations).
Next, it would be empowered with the authority to inspect and license online hosts' and IPROs' computer systems as compliant with the mandates of the legislation.
Quite significantly, OCCA would relieve online hosts of the apprehension of being sued by IPROs for contributory trademark injuries, as the identification of counterfeits would occur during the authentication process, a process that would be managed almost entirely by the IPROs themselves.