Uk based store been suspended for 3 months now ( still suspended )
6 weeks after etsy suspended my account with no explanation I received an email from (Martin F. Trainor) stating I must wire transfer TME Law $500 in order to have my suspension removed. This seems like it may an unlawful attempt to extort me. However, etsy have not emailed me to confirm why my account was suspended, or if it will be removed.
I painted a picture of an actress and sold it on a greetings card, I didnt write the name of the show on the card or any quotes from the said tv show, only in the listing name have I mentioned "tv show schitt's Creek birthday card"
email stated "Plaintiff has charged Defendants with violations of United States federal laws prohibiting trademark infringement"
is this a scam?
Etsy shop closed by US law firm
-
andreagibb93
- New Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:59 pm
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Last edited by andreagibb93 on Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Hi Andrea,
Using the word scam implies that it is illegal, which this practice is not (it's run by lawyers who will have taken care to stay within the law). However it is extremely unethical and in your case, it may be unjustified. Trade mark infringement can occur when the registered mark is used in the course of trade in the advertising, packaging or offering for sale of the relevant goods and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public that the goods are those of the trade mark owner or have been made available with his permission. This is the case under US and UK law.
The words Schitt's Creek are registered under an international trade mark registration for many classes of goods and services, including Class 16: Printed matter, namely, books, posters, greeting cards, calendars, comic books; stationery, writing paper and envelopes, writing pads, greeting cards, paper party decorations, transfers (decalcomania), photograms; bumper stickers; pens; pencils; paint brushes.
There is a defence against a claim if the words are being used descriptively, for example "for sale: One secondhand Rolls Royce car" would not infringe because the goods are genuine goods of the trade mark owner, even if the sale of those goods is not authorised by the owner of the mark.
It is debatable whether this defence applies in the way you have used the words complained of. Clearly you are referring to the real thing (the TV show) but it is equally clear that the actual portrayal of the actress (who I assume stars in the show) is not from the show. If you had said something like "Painting of X who stars in the TV show Schitt's Creek" that would have put more distance between the allegation that you are using the mark in a way that confuses the public, and more in a descriptive manner which would not amount to infringement. I cannot say how a court (either here or in the USA) might decide the issue.
Irrespective of the foregoing, the amount being demanded is totally disproportionate to the alleged infringement. It implies that the trade mark owner has suffered $500 worth of actual loss through your use of the words complained of, which of course is nonsense.
Using the word scam implies that it is illegal, which this practice is not (it's run by lawyers who will have taken care to stay within the law). However it is extremely unethical and in your case, it may be unjustified. Trade mark infringement can occur when the registered mark is used in the course of trade in the advertising, packaging or offering for sale of the relevant goods and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public that the goods are those of the trade mark owner or have been made available with his permission. This is the case under US and UK law.
The words Schitt's Creek are registered under an international trade mark registration for many classes of goods and services, including Class 16: Printed matter, namely, books, posters, greeting cards, calendars, comic books; stationery, writing paper and envelopes, writing pads, greeting cards, paper party decorations, transfers (decalcomania), photograms; bumper stickers; pens; pencils; paint brushes.
There is a defence against a claim if the words are being used descriptively, for example "for sale: One secondhand Rolls Royce car" would not infringe because the goods are genuine goods of the trade mark owner, even if the sale of those goods is not authorised by the owner of the mark.
It is debatable whether this defence applies in the way you have used the words complained of. Clearly you are referring to the real thing (the TV show) but it is equally clear that the actual portrayal of the actress (who I assume stars in the show) is not from the show. If you had said something like "Painting of X who stars in the TV show Schitt's Creek" that would have put more distance between the allegation that you are using the mark in a way that confuses the public, and more in a descriptive manner which would not amount to infringement. I cannot say how a court (either here or in the USA) might decide the issue.
Irrespective of the foregoing, the amount being demanded is totally disproportionate to the alleged infringement. It implies that the trade mark owner has suffered $500 worth of actual loss through your use of the words complained of, which of course is nonsense.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Good afternoon all,
I have the same issue, I have a etsy account where I sell jewellery, i have been runnning since Jan 2021 and always had good reviews and star seller stickers. I have sold over 450 items, in the items last year I decided to sell dog keyrings, these were bought online and then sold for a little profit. I have been contacted by Zlatkin Wong LLP after my etsy account was suspended. They have said I have sold a copy of the keyring which the claimant owns. The hearing is tomorrow, but i don't understand what I should do, further info can be found in this link: https://zlatkinwong.com/en/ndil-22-cv-5746/
I have the same issue, I have a etsy account where I sell jewellery, i have been runnning since Jan 2021 and always had good reviews and star seller stickers. I have sold over 450 items, in the items last year I decided to sell dog keyrings, these were bought online and then sold for a little profit. I have been contacted by Zlatkin Wong LLP after my etsy account was suspended. They have said I have sold a copy of the keyring which the claimant owns. The hearing is tomorrow, but i don't understand what I should do, further info can be found in this link: https://zlatkinwong.com/en/ndil-22-cv-5746/
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Hi zack,
If the hearing is tomorrow, there's not much you can do about it. Basically as long as you are in the UK there is no immediate threat to you, except of course that you had your Etsy account suspended.
The complaint filed with the Illinois court is very vague and of course it withholds both the actual details of the alleged trade mark infringement and also the name of the company whose intellectual property is alleged to have been infringed. On that basis you couldn't have filed a response even if you wanted to, due to the lack of specificity. Furthermore if you have never sold one of these keyrings to a person residing in the State of Illinois, the court really does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint which is specifically directed against you, since neither you, the trade mark owner or the alleged tort (ie the sale of the goods concerned) have any connection with the State of Illinois.
Unlike some of the previous cases mentioned in this thread, this complaint seems to be entirely about trade mark infringement. This has been lodged under two heads: the Federal Trade Mark Act (United States Code Chap 15 - the so called Lanham Act) and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This second act is unenforcible outside the State of Illinois and therefore any order of the court under the part of the complaint which deals with that Act could not be enforced through the UK courts.
You didn't mention anything about which trademarks which might be been affixed to the keyrings. You mentioned dogs, so I am guessing that maybe the key rings feature something like a Paw Patrol character. Trade marks are only protected in the territories in which they are registered. Since we don't know the identity of mark which it is alleged has been infringed I can't check to see if it has been registered in the UK. Obviously if the relevant mark hasn't been registred here, then any order made in respect of this complaint would be unenforcible in the UK. However if it is something like a Paw Patrol character then I think we can assume for now that it will have been registred here.
Here's what the UK law (section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994) says about infringement:
If you do hear anything further from this law firm, about the outcome of the hearing in the USA, you may need to consult a legal advisor about your next response. It doesn't need to be a solicitor, you can speak to a trade mark attorney about the matter. You can find details of how to do this via the website of the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys.
If the hearing is tomorrow, there's not much you can do about it. Basically as long as you are in the UK there is no immediate threat to you, except of course that you had your Etsy account suspended.
The complaint filed with the Illinois court is very vague and of course it withholds both the actual details of the alleged trade mark infringement and also the name of the company whose intellectual property is alleged to have been infringed. On that basis you couldn't have filed a response even if you wanted to, due to the lack of specificity. Furthermore if you have never sold one of these keyrings to a person residing in the State of Illinois, the court really does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint which is specifically directed against you, since neither you, the trade mark owner or the alleged tort (ie the sale of the goods concerned) have any connection with the State of Illinois.
Unlike some of the previous cases mentioned in this thread, this complaint seems to be entirely about trade mark infringement. This has been lodged under two heads: the Federal Trade Mark Act (United States Code Chap 15 - the so called Lanham Act) and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This second act is unenforcible outside the State of Illinois and therefore any order of the court under the part of the complaint which deals with that Act could not be enforced through the UK courts.
You didn't mention anything about which trademarks which might be been affixed to the keyrings. You mentioned dogs, so I am guessing that maybe the key rings feature something like a Paw Patrol character. Trade marks are only protected in the territories in which they are registered. Since we don't know the identity of mark which it is alleged has been infringed I can't check to see if it has been registered in the UK. Obviously if the relevant mark hasn't been registred here, then any order made in respect of this complaint would be unenforcible in the UK. However if it is something like a Paw Patrol character then I think we can assume for now that it will have been registred here.
Here's what the UK law (section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994) says about infringement:
It is not a defence that you were unaware that use of the trade mark in relation to the goods had not been authorised by the trade mark owner. It is a matter of strict liabilty and the law requires you to make careful checks about the authenticity of any goods you buy and sell with regard to the correct use of trade marks. Clearly if you had been supplied with something which purported to be an authentic licence which accompanied the goods, it would be open to a UK court decide if this was sufficient to reduce your liablity for damages, but it would not prevent an order for destruction of the infringing goods to be made, and you would not be entitled to any compensation for your loss. None of that is strictly relevant at present since the case is not being heard in a UK court, but it's here to provide some background.10 Infringement of registered trade mark.
(1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.
(2) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because—
(a) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or
(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.
If you do hear anything further from this law firm, about the outcome of the hearing in the USA, you may need to consult a legal advisor about your next response. It doesn't need to be a solicitor, you can speak to a trade mark attorney about the matter. You can find details of how to do this via the website of the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
This is what they replied to me yesterday after the court hearing:
Hello,
We are seeking statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for your use of a counterfeit version of our client’s registered trademark. Courts consider a variety of factors beyond sales in formulating a statutory damages award, including wide exposure over the Internet, the value of our client’s trademark, and the benefit of deterring defendants and similarly situated intentional and unintentional online counterfeit sellers.
In recent similar cases in this District, courts have entered summary judgment in favor of mid-market trademark owners, found willful infringement, and awarded substantial statutory damage awards exceeding $100,000 even though there were minimal sales, e.g.,
- Anti-Age Technologies LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 20-cv-06597 Dkt. 70 (NDIL) (awarding $150,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of skin care trademark)
- Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. Besttomorrow Store, et al., No. 19-cv-02179 Dkt. 47 (NDIL) (awarding $175,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of cosmetics trademark
- Ouyenic Ltd. v. Alucy, et al., No. 20-cv-03490 Dkt. 210 (NDIL) awarding $200,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of waxing trademark)
Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in advertising and promoting his trademark. As a result, products sold under our client’s trademark are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being high-quality products sourced from Plaintiff.
Absent compelling information to the contrary, we conclude that you offered the accused product to American consumers without conducting any due diligence as to whether they were authorized to use our client’s trademark. Any reasonable inquiry would have revealed that your client’s use of our client’s trademark was unauthorized, and therefore counterfeit. “Willful infringement may be attributed to the defendant’s actions where he had knowledge that his conduct constituted infringement or where he showed a reckless disregard for the owner’s rights.” Monster Energy Co. v. Jing, 2015 WL 4081288, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2015). Such a reckless disregard for our client’s trademarks rights amounts to willfulness in this circuit, which also makes attorney fees mandatory. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b).
Likewise, Courts in this district routinely reject the “I didn’t know” argument. See, Monster Energy Company v. Chen Wensheng, et al., 15-cv-4166 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2016) (court not persuaded by defendants’ unsubstantiated assertions that these “are the actions of an un-informed Chinese citizen that made a mistake.”); Bulgari, S.P.A. v. Zou Xiaohong, et al., 2015 WL 6083202, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (rejecting defendant’s argument that infringement was not willful, in light of defendant being a merchant and the mark being “prominently displayed on the infringing product”).
In light of the above, Plaintiff is willing to settle this matter for $2,000. This amount is reasonable in light of prior awards against Internet-based counterfeiters, the value of our client’s trademark, steps taken by our client to protect his trademarks, and to sufficiently deter you and similarly situated online counterfeit sellers. It is also well under the maximum award available for non-willful conduct pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).
Best regards,
Enforcement
Zlatkin Wong LLP
Hello,
We are seeking statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) for your use of a counterfeit version of our client’s registered trademark. Courts consider a variety of factors beyond sales in formulating a statutory damages award, including wide exposure over the Internet, the value of our client’s trademark, and the benefit of deterring defendants and similarly situated intentional and unintentional online counterfeit sellers.
In recent similar cases in this District, courts have entered summary judgment in favor of mid-market trademark owners, found willful infringement, and awarded substantial statutory damage awards exceeding $100,000 even though there were minimal sales, e.g.,
- Anti-Age Technologies LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 20-cv-06597 Dkt. 70 (NDIL) (awarding $150,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of skin care trademark)
- Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. Besttomorrow Store, et al., No. 19-cv-02179 Dkt. 47 (NDIL) (awarding $175,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of cosmetics trademark
- Ouyenic Ltd. v. Alucy, et al., No. 20-cv-03490 Dkt. 210 (NDIL) awarding $200,000 default judgment for counterfeit use of waxing trademark)
Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in advertising and promoting his trademark. As a result, products sold under our client’s trademark are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being high-quality products sourced from Plaintiff.
Absent compelling information to the contrary, we conclude that you offered the accused product to American consumers without conducting any due diligence as to whether they were authorized to use our client’s trademark. Any reasonable inquiry would have revealed that your client’s use of our client’s trademark was unauthorized, and therefore counterfeit. “Willful infringement may be attributed to the defendant’s actions where he had knowledge that his conduct constituted infringement or where he showed a reckless disregard for the owner’s rights.” Monster Energy Co. v. Jing, 2015 WL 4081288, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2015). Such a reckless disregard for our client’s trademarks rights amounts to willfulness in this circuit, which also makes attorney fees mandatory. Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b).
Likewise, Courts in this district routinely reject the “I didn’t know” argument. See, Monster Energy Company v. Chen Wensheng, et al., 15-cv-4166 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2016) (court not persuaded by defendants’ unsubstantiated assertions that these “are the actions of an un-informed Chinese citizen that made a mistake.”); Bulgari, S.P.A. v. Zou Xiaohong, et al., 2015 WL 6083202, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (rejecting defendant’s argument that infringement was not willful, in light of defendant being a merchant and the mark being “prominently displayed on the infringing product”).
In light of the above, Plaintiff is willing to settle this matter for $2,000. This amount is reasonable in light of prior awards against Internet-based counterfeiters, the value of our client’s trademark, steps taken by our client to protect his trademarks, and to sufficiently deter you and similarly situated online counterfeit sellers. It is also well under the maximum award available for non-willful conduct pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).
Best regards,
Enforcement
Zlatkin Wong LLP
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Thanks Zack.
The fact that their letter is full of irrelevant and slightly bombastic wording leads to me to believe that this is 99% bluff. However even with a 1% chance that it's not, you should get some legal advice, as the stakes are high.
The fact that their letter is full of irrelevant and slightly bombastic wording leads to me to believe that this is 99% bluff. However even with a 1% chance that it's not, you should get some legal advice, as the stakes are high.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Thanks Andy, you have been really helpful
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
I yesterday got the a letter from Etsy asking me to conntact this Martin F. Trainor who I assume has sued me. I havn't been able to catch sleep since then I don't trust this lawyer as stated above the website seems fake. There is hardly any info, and no adress or registration number.. I don't know what amount they will ask for but I just lost my job and is no good position to pay a big amount. Did all you here pay settlmeant? I'd rather not and just give up Etsy. I don't live in US. The law firm is in US and the company holding the license is Iron Maiden Holding Lt.
Any one chose not to pay? Did you loose your store?
Any one chose not to pay? Did you loose your store?
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Yep, same here. UK shop taken down by TME-Law.
There are no explanations and no documents (yet), but since they claim to be representing IRON MAIDEN HOLDINGS Ltd, I already know that this is about one single item in my entire shop. I used an Iron Maiden badge on one of my handmade pet jumpers. That is it. It never actually occured to me it was illegal. I learnt the hard way. It cost me a shop.
In all honesty, I'm not bothered about the court proceedings and I am going to ignore them. But I wouldn't mind getting the shop back, so I'm curious if the settlement they expect is reasonable and proporionate to the assumed loss that trademark owner made?
Also, what is the time scale? They took me down on 17th December, and TME-Law have not responded to my email yet.
There are no explanations and no documents (yet), but since they claim to be representing IRON MAIDEN HOLDINGS Ltd, I already know that this is about one single item in my entire shop. I used an Iron Maiden badge on one of my handmade pet jumpers. That is it. It never actually occured to me it was illegal. I learnt the hard way. It cost me a shop.
In all honesty, I'm not bothered about the court proceedings and I am going to ignore them. But I wouldn't mind getting the shop back, so I'm curious if the settlement they expect is reasonable and proporionate to the assumed loss that trademark owner made?
Also, what is the time scale? They took me down on 17th December, and TME-Law have not responded to my email yet.
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
I do have the same case number... isn't that odd? He is asking for settling with 1117 dollars or go to court for 2000 000 dollars for every use?
Such a long load of bs about lost jobs and lost tax money. I had it as a part-time job and I did pay tax... Now I have to apply for unemployment money. whatevver. I bet if Maiden wanted to sell the same thing they would buy it cheap from China and not hire US-citizens to sit and fold and glue paper for a few coins.
Such a long load of bs about lost jobs and lost tax money. I had it as a part-time job and I did pay tax... Now I have to apply for unemployment money. whatevver. I bet if Maiden wanted to sell the same thing they would buy it cheap from China and not hire US-citizens to sit and fold and glue paper for a few coins.
thealmeister1 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:48 am Hello.
I have also received the same email from Etsy with a link to https://www.tme-law.com/case/22-cv-05563 dated Oct 26th. Nothing yet in my Spam folder. My Etsy shop has been suspended. Myself or my shop are not listed anywhere in the documents that have been sent and the majority of it is redacted. I am UK based, haven't sold any of the items in question in the US and haven't sold any item at all to Illinois. I have yet to speak with Etsy about this. Has anyone had any positive responses from Etsy regarding if this is a scam? I am concerned that Etsy will give out my personal information. Everything about this screams suspicious. I don't have any money to "pay them off" to get my shop back. I don't know what to do.
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
chakian post[i[/i wrote:_id=11519 time=1671661799 user_id=114330]
I do have the same case number... isn't that odd?
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Not really, there are more than 60 ppl sued in this case , together..
Btw, I paid them off yesterday. I will let you know if it changed anything if I just wasted the money
Btw, I paid them off yesterday. I will let you know if it changed anything if I just wasted the money
Re: Etsy shop closed by US law firm
Ok please let me know how it goes. Did you pay 1100$?