"Update on Pirated Eureka Figures" Topic

Will do. I'm gonna cause some for that seller! See you later.

Considering he is selling a lot of other scale and period figures its most likely the same thing could be happening there.

It might be worth contacting Essex as imfadcom seems to be selling lots of their figures too.

--
Martin Stephenson
Vexillia: Wargames Miniatures & Accessories
vexillia.ltd.uk
facebook.vexillia.ltd.uk
pikeandplunder.vexillia.ltd.uk
twitter.com/vexltd

This is bad. Well done for spotting him. Shame on him

martin

Lawyer here: Boys we are forgetting the obvious. You have more than stated a valid case. You contact Ebay and get those thieves lifted from eBay. They cannot knowing be a conduit for fraud without taking a whack themselves. Insist they remove the fraud else you will turn the lead to gold.

John Hoefer thought the software was genuine because of the quality of the printing on the box and the fact that it was sealed in plastic. The two found several other eBay listings — some were completed sales -- with the same box pictured.

John took a few details off the box and its packaging, and Susy Hoefer put it on eBay.

After a few days eBay pulled the listing. A few days later, the two got the cease-and-desist letter.

Shame on them.

Pathetic. I wish Eureka could get their hands on him.

Sic Ebay on them. And a pox on their house.
It is a small enough business without this sort of thing going on.

At the risk of sounding blue fezzy or the DH…."what else do you expect from China?"…I've come across tons of pirated stuff out of there. They care not for copyrights, or trabemarks, etc…and trying to enforce legal action on them is almost impossible….

But let ebay know and pull them off that site!

And speaking of Eureka…it's about time I made an order from them…

Mixed feeling on reading this. Of course I feel anger at this pirate and sympathy for Eureka. I admire any small businessman who creates wealth and employment, risking his own money to do so.

But the Nike case makes my blood boil. This is a clear case of lawyers seeking the easier target, and an injust law bought by the wealth to keep a case going until its decided in your favour. In terms of natural justice of course not knowing you are buying counterfeit goods should be a valid defence if there are reasonable grounds.

But I despise the whole ' OK who shall we go after – the criminal or the poor sap who probably won't be able to afford a long court case properly defended ' Shame on NIKE! My wife is a teacher, and has is in constant fear of being sued by parents if something happens to one of the children in her class. Lawyers are on record as advising parents not to bother sueing the State, since they can afford lawyers. Go after the individual teachers, no matter how incidental their involvement, as they will quickly settle out of court for the value of their house.

It may seem irrelevant to this NIKE piracy case, but its the same principle – don't go after the main perpetrator, go after the person who can least afford a defense!

Well ok, you've told us about it twice now. What else are you going to do?

I think he's just expecting us to support him by boycotting the painter…?
Which I will gladly do.

I like Eureka minis and would never buy from a foreign entity on Ebay. But….I can't help but feel like Eureka is making a veiled threat to anyone who purchased them. If they aren't going to pursue action with their lawyers against consumers, why mention it?

It must be frustrating as a manufacturer to have this happen and I'm sure that a sense of helplessness abounds. I will continue to buy Eureka in person at cons and know for sure what I'm purchasing.

a veiled threat??? surely you jest

If the Nike case is going to be the norm, to protect ourselves we shouldn't buy anything. Anyone can do a Nike swoosh, how are we to discern who did it. If certain mini creators and sellers think this is a wonderful thing Nike is doing, they have lost my money. In a hobby/economy where you can actually trust the very vast majority of sellers, this is a threat that really turns me off. I applaud the effort against pirating for this hobby and would definitely do my part to expose fraud, but I would never expose myself or advise another to do the same by buying from someone who would throw an innocent buyer under the bus for the doings of another. If there is not a good recourse for such international lawfulness, spend your time and money creating one and not threatening customers. I understand your plight but detest your threats………….

okay. not veiled. How about an overt threat.

And don't call me Surely.

The 'threat' seemed more like a warning to me- Eureka's not going to sue a customer, but other companies might. The Nike case doesn't even make sense to me as presented, but certainly I could see someone knocking on my door and demand that I destroy what was bought.

Rich

I have bought from this service.
I bought some "Perry" French limbers.
I am sure their old listing used brand names. They appear no longer to do this.
I notice they are selling Games Worksop figures.
Nic Rob id suggest you reach out to GW's IP team.

Well ok, you've told us about it twice now. What else are you going to do?

Actually, TMP has taken this story from Fighting 15s' news feed (not that I object because the main point is to raise awareness).

Notifying eBay that items are counterfeit does not seem to work. There is no mechanic to report mass counterfeiting.

What I intend to do, as actually contacting eBay about mass counterfeiting has no easy channel, is to go the official route through Trading Standards. This will take time. And as Trading Standards has shown little interest in counterfeit figures available on sale at UK wargames shows in the past, I am not brim full of confidence that even this route will achieve anything.

But….I can't help but feel like Eureka is making a veiled threat to anyone who purchased them.

Eureka is not responsible for this news; Fighting 15s is.

The Nike case is something I stumbled upon while trying to find out what I could do. I mainly found it interesting that the individual private buyer could be the subject of action.

As I pointed out in the main news story, Fighting 15s and Eureka are small full-time businesses, and "it would take a special kind of company with very bored lawyers to stoop that low…" We don't have the resources to mount legal actions of the same petty nature as Nike. Other wargames figure makers fond of protecting their IP do.

Sparker's comment that the Nike case made his blood boil is pretty much the reaction it got at the time from a number of people, and weighed against the successful prosecution of an individual is the vast negative reaction from the public. No one loves a giant for taking down an apparently guiltless individual.

But what Nike did is not so very different from the music industry successfully prosecuting teenagers for downloading pirated music, a number of instances of which have been reported in the press (again, largely to the public detriment of the music industry). And innocently receiving pirated goods is not so very different for unknowingly receiving and handling stolen goods, for which you can be prosecuted. The counterfeit goods are, after all, illegal.

So, my approach is very much about increasing awareness of counterfeit figures, rather than pursue a stupid legal option that would only create a negative impression.

The previous news item at TMP link gave a list of things to watch out for.

Ian, Fighting 15s

The problem is of course, that, should eBay take an interest and ban that user, Chinese authorities are hardly likely to take action for reasons already mentioned. And all Imfadcom needs to do is re-register to rejoin the site – and you are back at the beginning.

Perhaps the route to go is to go on publicising the seller and the general idea that buying from China / HK is risky and leave him where he is. I buy AB figures because of their higher quality compared to almost all other 15mm Napoleonics – if I know I'm not going to get AB but something inferior then I won't buy it.

Call me cynical but appealing to people's sense of honour and fair play is less likely to succeed than telling them they aren't getting the bargain they think they are.

The Nike case was a massive PR cockup, which really did little than say 'don't buy Nike in case they turn out to be counterweight and you get sued'.

Note that, although they went for damages and costs, they were not allowed to pursue for damages and were not awarded costs. The remedy was destruction of the goods and a promise not to buy counterweight goods again, which is pretty pointless as you can't tell until you have them in your hand. He had apparently bought them online with the belief that they were genuine, albeit discounted, items. The message was clear, never but Nike again in case they are not genuine… massive own goal.

Mr Bateman was the only one who went to court, and he chose to defend himself. I get the impression that Nike were counselled by the court not to proceed but elected to anyway as it was within their rights. I believe the hope was that Mr Bateman would employ a decent lawyer who would have pointed our their client was a bona fide purchaser without notice, and would have slapped Nike to pursue the actual infringing party (who they obviously can't find, or would have had to pursue in China, presumably, under Chinese law).

There does seem to be a floating question about how many pairs of shoes he bought…

Notifying Ebay via VERO, removes the individual listing, but it is harder to get a lister banned altogether, and would require each and every listing to be reported – something for bored Nike solicitors to do, perhaps.

The counterfeit casting of Eureka is deplorable, but I think attaching it anywhere near the Nike case sends the wrong message. We would offer to replace counterfeit QRF goods with genuine castings, and go after the actual infringer (including, as here, name and shame… although I doubt this company exhibits any shame), but would certainly not attempt to prosecute bona fide purchasers who were unaware that the goods were counterfeit until received.

On the other hand if you were knowingly importing quantities of known counterfeit items for resell, we might take a different opinion.

"Nike did not go for the importer or the retailer, but the private individual who bought them."

And thats why I refuse to buy from Nike!

Well said QRF and I hope Eureka can get this person shut down on e-bay.

As I read it I don't think Eureka are 'threatening' anyone, neither overtly or in a veiled manner, people are always quick to try and read between the lines and jump to conclusions on the internet and I don't believe threats are what is intended here. I think they are trying in the nicest possible way to inform consumers about fake goods of poor quality which they may be unwittingly purchasing. Eureka are trying to protect their hard won business in a global economy where they supply worldwide but unfortunately have little or no power over the unscrupulous. I think now they know the culprit they should sent them a warning shot from their lawyers, but as people keep stating that Chinese law makes it almost impossible to prevent piracy then their only course open is to inform the end user and hope that they do the honourable thing and cease buying from imfadcom.
The reference to the Nike case, a massive global manufacturer with a huge advertising presence in a billion pound market, is somewhat at odds with a small business supplying by comparison a miniscule customer base in far fewer countries.No offence meant to Eureka, but you aren't in the same league.

Notifying Ebay via VERO, removes the individual listing, but it is harder to get a lister banned altogether, and would require each and every listing to be reported – something for bored Nike solicitors to do, perhaps.

The counterfeit casting of Eureka is deplorable, but I think attaching it anywhere near the Nike case sends the wrong message. We would offer to replace counterfeit QRF goods with genuine castings, and go after the actual infringer (including, as here, name and shame… although I doubt this company exhibits any shame), but would certainly not attempt to prosecute bona fide purchasers who were unaware that the goods were counterfeit until received.

Caught with TMP's scheduled maintenance shutdown (hence a few uncorrectable typing errors!), I actually found eBay's VeRO infringement process and have submitted a complaint against 20 listed items on eBay.

The UK link for this is: auction

I must say I found this difficult to find, thanks to eBay's new front page continually adding items as you scroll down.

The process is also prehistoric, requiring the declaration and list of infringing items to be faxed. I haven't seen a fax machine for years and with broadband technology ousting the fax modem from computers, I had to dig out my ancient Mac Cube and set it up to use its fax modem, after which the six-page infringement documents took around 10 minutes to send.

As I have previously stated on TMP (in comments on the first article about this piracy), Geoff, I have replaced counterfeits unwittingly bought by customers and businesses. This is done on a one-off basis with advice to watch out in future for counterfeits. Unlike Nike, I don't regard people who have been innocently caught out by fakes to be criminals: they have simply been duped: to me it would be unthinkable to take what is undoubtedly heavy handed legal action against them.

I repeat that my approach is to make wargamers and collectors aware of fakes and what to look out for. I believe the majority of wargamers are reasonable people who, given the appropriate guidance, will be careful about what they buy.

I've taken several months getting the evidence together to prove without doubt that the figures sold by this seller on eBay are counterfeits. I have taken great care not to make an unfounded accusation of piracy, for instance just based on the similarity of an item to one or more in Eureka's range. I've seen this result in egg on the faces of other owners of wargames businesses. I have obtained examples of the pirated figures, currently and technically in the hands of my solicitor because he's the idiot who bought them, measured them and identified distinct branding on them that confirms trademark infringement.

I also looked into the consequence of buying counterfeits. I was interested whether it had any legal repercussions for the purchaser, and found that it did. I believe the Nike case is therefore important in this context because it sets a precedent. While a small business such as mine would not contemplate an action such as Nike's, I can imagine it being possible from a major wargames company.

I should add that what it will also take for any action to be effective against eBay pirates is for all affected businesses to file infringement notices via VeRO ( auction )

The eBay seller I filed infringement notices against had eight pages of items, so my 20 only scratched the surface. It needs businesses such as Essex, Perry, Old Glory and so on to check the listings and also file infringement notices once they are certain that what is being sold is in fact counterfeit.

There are other Hong Kong services that I also now have to go after, again carefully after duly proving the figures are counterfeit. eBay buyers can help by checking what they buy against known originals, reporting anything that's wrong to eBay, and claiming their money back.

Nic at Eureka in Oz has had terrible trouble trying to get eBay to take notice of him. As his agent, Fighting 15s can use stronger EU laws and the process available in the UK to file infringement notices, but it's a lot of work. I'd rather be selling, painting and playing with toy soldiers. :-)

Ian

Just seen this thread and very sorry this is happening to your companies.
I had a quick look at the website for the painting service and noted it states either hand painted shield designs or transfers from LBMS. I don't recall ever selling to this company in China. I did a quick email search for the contact email. I mainly have retail dealings with Dragon painting service. They could get them from another retailer or distributor however. So I hope I am not victim to the same unscrupulous business practices.

Steve.

It was a update; thanks

I've been to Macau, HK, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, etc, etc
I've seen Manunited gear for sale in HK's (Kowloon nightmarket) along with fake Tag watches.

In Bejing, I remember being approached by a street person offering brand new North Face jackets for $40. USD In their local silk market I saw these jackets sold on a more grand scale.

In Shanghai I saw a pair of black North Face gloves for $10. USD

On one hand you get the fakes on the other, big names get their stuff manufactured for say 10-20% retail cost.

What makes any product really official when it could be going out the back door of the same factory producing for a big name…

Steve (LBMS) sorry to hear!!!

Eureka I've been starting to get website visits from HK too. Though I do remember seeing hobby shops 15 years ago selling GW products. I think I remember GW having an official store in HK!!!

Mike

PS. Eureka, can you do an alloy analysis. Would be interested to get your opinion on your results.

At the risk of sounding blue fezzy or the DH…."what else do you expect from China?"…
----------------------
Speaking as someone from an Anglo (well Celtic – I'm not an Anglo-Saxon!)-Chinese family, whilst I fully know the problem with counterfeiting in China, I don't think comments like the above are helpful either. Most of us probably have houses full of 'genuine' Chinese made goods – for economic reasons that we may or may not like but unless we are prepared to pay top prices (and in many cases the Western industries to make such simply don't exist now) then its just reality – the days of made in HK being shorthand for poor quality are long gone (ironically of course that was in the days when it was a British colony!)

What did I say regarding quality? Sure there's good product coming out of China. It all depends on managements manufacturing standards and quality assurance.

Aren't we talking about pirating?

RelliK
You didn't say anything about quality – I was commenting upon the comment by our CSA friend that seemed to me a generic comment about China (if that was not what was meant then my apologies – being married to someone Chinese when you are a Brit does sometimes lead to interesting comments by people re 'Chinks' etc when they don't know my family circs!)

Nothing wrong with wives made in the Orient! :)

Ps, my goodness, should I have said spouses….

My apologies to Eureka, I didn't see the Fighting 15's connection to the Nike post.

Look forward to getting some more frogs and toads.

On the upside…"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

And innocently receiving pirated goods is not so very different for unknowingly receiving and handling stolen goods, for which you can be prosecuted.

On the contrary, the two are very different.

It appears that under the Tradesmarks Act there is no defence of not knowing that the goods you ordered/possess etc. were/are counterfeit. And I must say that I was surprised by this.

However, under the Theft Act it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew or believed that the goods you 'handled' were stolen. So a defence is available and you cannot be prosecuted for 'unknowingly receiving and handling stolen goods'. Otherwise, for example, hundreds, if not thousands, of motorists would be prosecuted for unwittingly buying stolen cars every year.

I was surprised by it too. I could understand the lack of defence for the infringing party in producing and selling counterfeit goods, but it seemed strange that an unknowing purchaser was also infringing the trademark.

On the other hand, I think it was quite significant that Nike were only permitted to seek destruction of the goods themselves, with no financial claim, and it was left to the individual to seek recompense via his card company for his out of pocket losses.

Just reading Nike V Bateman. Amazing case. They used s.10(4)(c) which permits prosecution if someone 'imports or exports under the trademark'. I am surprised, as although he did purchase and import the goods, he wasn't really doing it under the Nike trademark, per se, and I am slightly surprised at the findings.

No matter how light their punishment turned out to be, it is definitely a "Never buy Nike again" for me.

On the other hand, Fighting 15s, QRF, I salute your efforts, and will continue to buy your stuff whenever it fits my needs. I'll have to go look at my lead pile and see what I'm short of…

same painter was selling Front Rank 28mm too

and 28mm perry

Nic at Eureka in Oz has had terrible trouble trying to get eBay to take notice of him. As his agent, Fighting 15s can use stronger EU laws and the process available in the UK to file infringement notices, but it's a lot of work

Ebay never ceases to amaze me. If anything they should be ignoring you (as you are only an agent and hold no IP rights) and paying attention to him (as the IP owner with the right to action)

Nic apparently has previously filed a VeRO declaration and been unimpressed with the results.

I have also alerted GW's legal dept and Essex about figures from the seller in the event that they are counterfeit. I'm not up to identifying every maker's figures, let alone knowing if they are genuine or fake. I'm sure if GW discovers that some of the items are fake, it as a company has more commercial weight and will be noticed. :-)

Is I possible for all the aggrieved parties to mount a joint action?

If every figure manufacturer listed their legitimate painting partners, then we could avoid the others.

What a douchebag.

RelliK
You didn't say anything about quality – I was commenting upon the comment by our CSA friend that seemed to me a generic comment about China (if that was not what was meant then my apologies – being married to someone Chinese when you are a Brit does sometimes lead to interesting comments by people re 'Chinks' etc when they don't know my family circs!
============================================================

So we are going to try and use political correctness to bury the truth which is that China has no respect for copy right law and the vast majority of time china is the source of shoddy knock offs. Maybe jump up and down and shake the sand out, the statement "what do you expect from China" is true.