Counterfeit items and copyright infringement

[foreverdumb]

I have a seller in my category that is selling the top brand named items but they are I presume counterfeit for a number of reasons. The items have the brand names on them but some of the logos and brand names are digitally altered so it looks foggy over the name but some logos and names on the items are still visible.  

My question is if the actual item being sold has the logos and brand names on them but the seller is not using the brand name in the description and the images are only blurred out on some logos and brand names that is still not allowed I would presume, that is if the items are not made by the brand.

As parallel importation of genuine brand name items is legal in Australia why would the seller be doing it? 

They are a Top Rated Seller located in Australia.

Any educated responses would be appreciated.

[animecat2]

"Is the Op Shop charity run? That just takes the cake if it is, not only is she supporting the importation of illegal goods, she is supporting sweat shops which is actually contradictory to what most Charities stand for.. "

Yes it's a charity shop , problem is it's in a small town and my saying something wouldn't go down well. There's a lot of people who just don't care what they do these days to get a dollar in .

I know it will be turned against me like I'll be the one preventing the charity from getting money for the needy blah blah , small town small minds as they say :^O

[Anonymous]

Patch...I am in no way supporting the sweat shop industry but most of the major brands use sweat shop labour.

Gucci is an inglorious example. 'Made in Italy' by illegal Chinese immigrants crammed into on site accomodation earning b#*ger all ( but still far better off than starving in the country side of their motherland ).

[licoricebabyandfabmama]

Teralert,  that depends     does the seller state that they are copies of the swaddle.  If they do, then I dont mind because I assume that there will still be buyers that dont want to buy a product that has not been approved by the original company  especially items intended for infants.  In regards to clothing and other such items I personally dont see the point of wearing 'faux' labels and i assume there are enough buyers who dont either.   In regards to the racquets   i think if buyers were actually made aware they were not real many of them would not purchase either.      

[licoricebabyandfabmama]

Patchoo,   Personally I think LV and other big labels know that if a person is willing to buy a "fake" for much less cost, they never had the money to buy a "real" whatever it is anyway.  Just means  more people out there determined to have the real thing and not one of the many impersonations.     The problem is when people try to pass off the fake as the real thing and yes that angers me.     As a matter a fact i just posted about chinese manufactures using designers pictures and putting there own label over the picture,  oh and then charging a similar price.   I wrote to the company whose pictures had been used.      Now if the manufacturer had posted that the dress was a xxx style dress,  or had made it clear in anyway the picture shown was not the dress you would be sent I wouldn’t have cared.

In short I guess say we are at the Royal Show and walk past a table of ugly LV purses,    we know they are fake, personally most of us would not buy so who cares.

[Anonymous]

OK then how about....

'SwaddleMe  by Kiddopotamus'

These items are exact copies of a leading brand.
They have not been approved for sale by the original manufacturer but have passed the most stringent Australian tests for safety and reliability.

They are perfect copies in every way but at a fraction of the price.

Here only $14.95

[digital*ghost]

Similar rationalisations crop up frequently in debates about illegally downloading music (for example "musicians and labels make heaps of money anyway, it won't matter if I steal one album" being similar to "people still buy the real stuff, and as long as others know they're buying fakes, it's ok"), but they're (IMO) narrow-minded points of view that fail to consider the real situation in full, and it's not necessarily about money.

I consider myself an artist in what I do, essentially because I design and make my own items. My designs are original and therefore protected by copyright. I work hard to do what I do, I have a brand name, it's not particularly recognisable and I don't earn a lot of money, but I would be very upset if someone copied my designs in order to profit from them - it wouldn't matter to me if their prices were higher or lower than mine. 

I don't care if a company makes millions from their designs, or - like me - a few bucks here and there, their rights are the same as mine and neither of us deserve more or less protection from someone else stealing them and profiting from other people's hard work.

[licoricebabyandfabmama]

Really though,  i think all the fakes have provided better business for LV, prada etc,   because now people say  "oh, my purse,  its real LV"     it creates status.     If there were no fakes would people still focus as much on wanting the real label?  Or would it just be another label?              

[***super_nova***]

Really though,  i think all the fakes have provided better business for LV, prada etc,   because now people say  "oh, my purse,  its real LV"     it creates status.     If there were no fakes would people still focus as much on wanting the real label?  Or would it just be another label?              

I think you are totally wrong about that;  people who buy the "real" ones do so because they want to show off.  With so many fakes around, which from 20 paces do not look any different, the LV bags are just common.  And if people want to buy something to advertise their superiority, LV bag is not the way to go nowadays.  🙂  I am sure the fakes cost LV dearly.

Frankly, I do not understand why would anybody be buying LV anyway.  I think they are ugly, and why pay thousands of dollars to advertise the brand.  Do not get me wrong, I do appreciate beautiful design and well made bag, shoes or garment, and I own several beautifully made designer labels items, but I do not have the need to have the label on the outside so everybody would know.

[digital*ghost]

Really though,  i think all the fakes have provided better business for LV, prada etc,   because now people say  "oh, my purse,  its real LV"     it creates status.     If there were no fakes would people still focus as much on wanting the real label?  Or would it just be another label?              

Real LV and Prada create their own status, by reputation, quality, price and the people who can afford them - there doesn't need to be  cheap copies of anything to elevate the value of something else, and again I personally believe that's a short-sighted rationalisation. 

 "I can't afford the real thing, but I can afford something from someone else who steals, it's not bad because the real company wasn't going to get my money anyway and because of me other people get to say they have the "real thing", even though they could say that if there weren't any fakes, saying it means more when there are fakes around..."

Sorry, I don't buy any of the rationalisations for stealing other people's name / work and profiting from it.

[lyndal1838]

Anyone who can afford to own designer clothes, shoes and bags would not be so vulgar as to go around informing everybody that they are genuine.

They own them, wear them and enjoy them and make no comment.

It is only people who "wanna be" someone who would go around pointing out that their clothing is genuine designer....and it probably isn't anyway.:^O