FiatKiller
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 02:15:59 PM |
|
So again, the lesson to be learned is to keep your bitcoins locally on your own hardware unless you are spending them for some reason. Forget anything online.
|
|
|
|
murraypaul
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 02:28:45 PM |
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex.
|
BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
|
|
|
MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 04:02:27 PM |
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex. Fakes aren't, unto themselves, illegal. Selling them as the real thing is fraud, though.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
murraypaul
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 04:15:10 PM |
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex. Fakes aren't, unto themselves, illegal. Selling them as the real thing is fraud, though. Perhaps US law is different, but I would have thought that selling them at all, even if clearly labelled as fakes, would still be a trademark violation. Edit: I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to be covered by 15 USC § 1125 (c) Dilution by blurring; dilution by tarnishment (1) Injunctive relief Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
|
BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
|
|
|
MoonShadow (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 06:06:15 PM |
|
Actually, after thinking about it again, you may have a claim. I was just thinking about how I purchased some sunglasses, a fake rolex (as a gag gift) and a chainsaw off of the Silk Road, nothing illegal there. Apart from the fake rolex. Fakes aren't, unto themselves, illegal. Selling them as the real thing is fraud, though. Perhaps US law is different, but I would have thought that selling them at all, even if clearly labelled as fakes, would still be a trademark violation. Edit: I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to be covered by 15 USC § 1125 Yes, but there is more to it than that. First off, it has to be fairly obvious that the manufacturer and the seller intended to commit fraud. A copycat that is obviously a copycat can easily be argued to be a parody product in court, and if the trademark holder never prosues the issue in a US court at all, then the law presumes that the product is not in violation of trademarks. Granted, this assumes that the trademark owner is aware of said copycat product, but that's their problem. Until an injuction against the product has occurred, selling them is not illegal; and buying them never is. EDIT: There are a number of Chinese knockoff products that have the trademarked name diliberately misspelled, that are often sold in cheap retail places commonly called "dollar stores". The copycats aren't very good, perhaps deliberately, and anyone who thought the product was the original had to be less than observant.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 12, 2013, 06:13:34 PM |
|
Yes, but there is more to it than that. First off, it has to be fairly obvious that the manufacturer and the seller intended to commit fraud. A copycat that is obviously a copycat can easily be argued to be a parody product in court, and if the trademark holder never prosues the issue in a US court at all, then the law presumes that the product is not in violation of trademarks. Granted, this assumes that the trademark owner is aware of said copycat product, but that's their problem. Until an injuction against the product has occurred, selling them is not illegal; and buying them never is.
Things like fake Rolexes are routinely seized. They don't need an injunction to do that, just a temporary restraining order or, for instance, an ex parte writ of search and seizure. The counterfeiting scum rarely challenge this after the products are seized, because there is a criminal element to trademark infringement (18 U.S.C § 2320), and the crooks are glad just to get away with whatever profits they earned with their fakes. It is rarely if ever illegal simply to purchase a counterfeit product. As for fake Rolexes, the fakes generally do not have the same second hand action as a real Rolex. A real Rolex has a second hand that is a delight to watch. The fakes tick along and spaz out and look like shit.
|
|
|
|
other_side
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2013, 12:46:45 AM |
|
Found similar situation with the quote that could be useful. The closing of Liberty Reserve last week seemed to have an immediate chilling effect on its customers, who were suddenly unable to access their funds and who posted anxious comments in underground forums, according to law enforcement officials. Mr. Bharara said the exchange’s clientele was largely made up of criminals, but he invited any legitimate users to contact his office to get their money back.
|
|
|
|
murraypaul
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2013, 09:55:24 AM |
|
EDIT: There are a number of Chinese knockoff products that have the trademarked name deliberately misspelled, that are often sold in cheap retail places commonly called "dollar stores". The copycats aren't very good, perhaps deliberately, and anyone who thought the product was the original had to be less than observant.
The point of the separate dilution clause is there doesn't have to be actual confusion: ...regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury It is enough that is clearly meant to look like the original, even if it isn't exactly the same, or uses a misspelled name.
|
BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
|
|
|
darkmule
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2013, 03:12:06 PM |
|
The theory of damages for that kind of dilution is that the mere existence of inferior knockoff products tarnishes the name of the original. For example, Rolex is damaged by the profusion of cheap knockoffs out there, such that someone wearing a real Rolex enjoys less benefit from it because of the presumption that it too is a cheap fake.
|
|
|
|
|