Fake £5 note targets UK online shoppers at Christmas

Reverse view of 2002 old style note

Luxury Income Club fight against fraud warn British shoppers to check their new £5 notes aren't counterfeit as online scammers launch an online scam ahead of the Xmas rush.

The old British banknotes are the being used and but reports from MSN money says the new £5 polymer note is also being used. Despite the Bank of England introducing a number of features to counteract fraudulent copies of the new polymer notes, they are warning people to remain vigilant and check their notes.

In the first half of 2016, approximately 152,000 counterfeit banknotes were removed from UK streets. Last year, the value of notes seized was over £5 million.

Ben Crosland, Senior Manager of the Banknote Education team at the Bank of England, said: "Christmas is a busy time for both retailers and the public, and unfortunately it provides an opportunity for criminals to pass on counterfeit notes as payment.

"While we work hard to stay one step ahead of fraudsters, it is important people check security features on the £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes when they are passed in transactions."

Crimestoppers have received an increasing amount of reports that scam artists have been paying for goods on Gumtree and Facebook with the counterfeit notes when meeting the sellers in person.

Crimestoppers' Chief Executive Mark Hallas, said: "The purpose of this campaign is to raise awareness of counterfeit money, especially around Christmas when there are more transactions happening and money can be tight. Purchasing counterfeit notes can be tempting and many people do not realise that, not only are these notes completely worthless, but knowingly holding or passing them on is a crime.

People can also contact Crimestoppers anonymously with information on 0800 555 111, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to give a statement to police or go to court."

How to check if your £5 is real or fake

Check the see-through window and the portrait of the Queen is correct

Look at the Elizabeth tower to check it is gold on the front of the note and silver on the back

Check the foil patches

On paper banknotes, feel for raised print across the words 'Bank of England'

Also on paper notes hold it up to the light to check the watermark and look for the metallic thread running through every genuine paper note

Thousands of people slated the Bank of England last month after they were shocked to discover the notes contained animal fat .

The Bank of England said the supplier of its new £5 note is looking at "potential solutions" to change the materials that make their new note to make it vegan-friendly.

The Bank said it was "aware of some people's concerns" about traces of the derivative, known as tallow, in its polymer note since being introduced into circulation in September.

A number of notes have also sold for astronomical levels after collectors forked out up £80,000 for ones with rare serial codes.

Some collectors are willing to pay more than 40 times the monetary value of the note for the chance to claim that they own a polymer £5 note that is among the very first the Bank of England ever produced,

Go to fakenotes.co.uk for more information.

Download the Luxury Income Club Online Scam Survival Guide for more help, tips and advice.

Remember; if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Share with us your experiences of possible fraudulent activity and we will ensure it is followed up with the relevant authorities and happy shopping.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products and services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Britain's Black Friday Sales Fight Online Fraud
» Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping Counterfeiters
» Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Britain's Black Friday Sales Fight Online Fraud

Delortae Agency 5 step guide. As Britain's Black Friday Sales set to boost online shopping which online scammers will be taking advantage of to defraud consumers out of their hard-earned cash and what steps we can take to protect ourselves and our accounts from fraudulent activity.

£10 million pounds was spent last year, 2015 with £12,000 online scam victims so what can we do?

1. E-mails. One of the most successful ways online scammers are using is our e-mail accounts. E-mail hacking of our email and banking accounts are being systematically attacked by fraudsters. Look at the address of the e-mail sender. It may look as if it's coming from a legitimate company but a close look at the sender will alert you to the sender and DO NOT click on any links or download any zipped files that proport to be an invoice, delivery or dispatch notices. These will contain viruses and malware that will be installed on your device and wait silently to register your 'key strokes'.
2. Passwords. Are a favoured way to get access to your money. It is fast and allows the thieves to spend large amounts of your money in a short space of time. Remember your bank will never email or text you to confirm your banking and login information. If you do receive this type of correspondence, report it to your financial institution immediately.
3. Fake Websites. There will be a flurry of activity on the set up of fake websites selling high ticket items. You will be encouraged to purchase these 'bargains' and on checkout be encouraged to enter your payment details along with your address for delivery. With this information, they will have the information they need to make purchases which are what they want. Purchase from legitimate websites and only make purchases from sites you know and trust and display SSL encryption on the payment page, the often green padlock or other verification in the URL Adress bar proves this site has been verified for payment. If it does not display 'https' before the address, avoid!
4. Transaction Page. Look for the verification and safe seal certificates displayed and if possible pay with a third party account, such as PayPal that will offer some protection about items that are not as described or don't arrive at all. They want your payment information and your money!
5. Pickpockets. If you going to brave the high street in search of that bargain, keep your wits about you. They will be looking for somebody vulnerable, momentarily distracted to relieve you of your cash or your goods.

Download the Luxury Income Club Online Scam Survival Guide for more help, tips and advice.

Remember; if something looks too good to be true, it usually is. Share with us your experiences of possible fraudulent activity and we will ensure it is followed up with the relevant authorities and happy shopping.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products and services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping Counterfeiters
» Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Alexander McQueen sued over royal wedding dress

Kate Middleton in the gown

ALEXANDER MCQUEEN has denied claims that the royal wedding dress was copied from another designer, branding the allegations "ridiculous". Reports Glamour UK.

"We are utterly baffled by this legal claim," says an official statement from McQueen. "Christine Kendall first approached us at Alexander McQueen almost four years ago, when we were clear with her that any suggestion Sarah Burton's design of the royal wedding dress was copied from her designs was nonsense."

"Sarah Burton never saw any of Ms Kendall's designs or sketches and did not know of Ms Kendall before Ms Kendall got in touch with us - some 13 months after the wedding. We do not know why Ms Kendall has raised this again, but there are no ifs, buts or maybes here: this claim is ridiculous."

Hertfordshire-based Christine Kendall is suing the fashion house for breach of copyright, after she submitted her sketches of wedding dress ideas to the Duchess of Cambridge.
Kendall alleges that she sent her sketches to the royal five months before the wedding and in return received a letter of thanks from the office of Prince William and Prince Harry in 2011.
"Miss Catherine Middleton has asked me to write and thank you so much for your letter of 18th November enclosing bridal gown designs," an official wrote.

"Miss Middleton was most interested to see your work and very much appreciated you taking the trouble to write. Should she wish to see more of your designs I will of course be in touch."
However a spokesperson for the Palace argued that they'd never seen the designs.
Kendall's solicitor, Humna Nadim of Manchester firm Kuits, says: "Proceedings have been issued because our client is certain that her company's design was unfairly taken and copied."

Content thanks: Glamour UK


✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion
» Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern
» Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern

Pic: JCPenney

JCPenney under the cosh again as Tuesday when luxury apparel maker Burberry filed suit against the retailer for trademark infringement reported BrandChannel. Burberry claims JCPenney is selling outerwear that features the “famous Burberry check” pattern that mimics its signature look too closely.

The particular objects that drew Burberry’s ire are scarves sold with matching coats. In addition, Burberry is upset that JCPenney continued selling the pieces for months after the former informed the latter of the issue, Reuters reports

“Even though defendants’ infringing products are of inferior quality, they appear superficially similar to genuine Burberry products,” Burberry said, according to the wire service. “Defendants’ actions are intended to deceive and mislead consumers into believing that defendants’ or their products are authorized, sponsored by or connected to Burberry.”

Burberry took another swing at JCPenney in the filing by calling its clothing “substandard,” the New York Post reports. 

What’s not mentioned in Burberry’s suit: the period in which the iconic British brand ditched its familiar check after it became associated with working-class Brits who caused such trouble that some bars wouldn’t allow anyone sporting Burberry plaid in the door, Marketplace observed.

But that was then. Now, Burberry would like JCPenney to shell out for the alleged infringement. The apparel maker is asking for triple damages, any profit, or up to $2 million for each trademark that has been infringed.

Content thanks: BrandChannel

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES

» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion

» Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

Coca-Cola Trademark Battle to Trademark ‘Zero’ Continues

Coca-Cola

COCA-COLA has been trying to trademark the word “zero” for the best part of 13 years and last month, Canada rejected Coca-Cola Company’s attempt to trademark the rights to the common English word for its diet drink brands—including Coca-Cola Zero, Sprite Zero and Powerade Zero.  The major brand leader will reportedly get the news on whether it has won or not later this year.

If Coca-Cola is given the rights, it can then sue imitators that have used the word, the Wall Street Journal reports. The first rival Coke would likely go after is Dr Pepper’s Diet Rite Pure Zero.

Losing the case, however, would allow other companies to start using “zero” in their product names.

You may remember, the battle for “zero” started when Dr Pepper challenged Coke’s trademark application, noting that there were then 32 other beverages not owned by Coke that used the term “zero,” such as Monster Energy Zero Ultra, Virgil’s Zero and Arnold Palmer Zero, Fortune reports. PepsiCo also got in on the fight, and UK and Canadian regulators ruled against Coca-Cola. 

Now it is America’s turn.

Coca-Cola main argument, appears to centre around the fact that “zero” is associated with its company because of “extensive advertising, promotion and sales.” Coke would love to have the rights to help push its Coke Zero more aggressively. In its latest earnings report issued Tuesday, the company reported a growth of 6 percent for Coke Zero across the globe while Diet Coke and Coke Light dropped by 6 percent.

The outcome may well set a legal trademark precedent no doubt for future disputes, will keep you posted.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

RELATED ARTICLES

» Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern

» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Fake Louis Vuitton Speedy bag

LOUIS VUITTON have fallen out once again with China's leading online e-tailer TAOBAO MARKETPLACE less than three years after the two signed a collaboration agreement Delorate Agency reported 14/10/2013.

The agreement Alibaba Group, China’s massive e-commerce firm, had announced with their partnership with French high fashion label Louis Vuitton that aimed to stop the sale of counterfeit luxury goods in China. And let's not forget the Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products Delortae Agency reported 20/3/2011 

The Alibaba-owned Taobao marketplace, China’s largest consumer-to-consumer online shopping outlet, is often flooded with knock-off designer goods in a country that largely turns a blind eye to their distribution. Alibaba, as a whole, handles more web transactions annually than both Amazon and eBay combined.

Louis Vuitton has filed suit in Beijing in connection with the sale of counterfeit goods on TaoBao, Alibaba’s e-commerce marketplace. According to Louis Vuitton’s complaint, which was filed in Beijing’s Haidian District Court, three individual sellers on the TaoBao platform were formerly convicted of operating a “serious” counterfeit counterfeit involving the sale of Louis Vuitton goods between 2011 and 2014. As a result, Louis Vuitton is owed 250,000 yuan, or $37,900 at current exchange, in economic damages.

Delortae Agency also reported in 2013, copyright and trademark infringement lawsuits against a number of counterfeit websites. Louis Vuitton set their sights on iOffer and their individual users (iOffer is a San Francisco based online trading community website that consists almost entirely of China based sellers) Websites also did not avoid their "net" as www.cheaplouisvuitton.com, a major infringement website blatantly flouting the major brands trademark with fakes, were also sued by the design house.

Like Chanel, before them, targeting individual sellers Louis Vuitton is targeting individual iOffer sellers also, for selling counterfeit items rather than to direct the suits to iOffer itself. No longer limiting themselves to the suits against domains alone and taking the fight straight to individual iOffer member merchants. Gucci also have sued individual iOffers members in similar suits against 102 individual sellers.

This maybe a trend that we will be seeing more of. Since the law seems to be telling the brands in recent rulings is that it is the brand responsibility to to protect it's property as shown in eBay Defeats Tiffany in Counterfeit Jewellery Suit, which Delortae Agency reported 20/10/2013.

Tracking the vast majority of the individual sellers will be difficult to locate and identify as they grow more sophisticated in covering their tracks to protect their proceeds from counterfeit sales. This does mean however, their individual shops within Marketplace websites such as eBay, Taobao, iOffer or Amazon, will be shut down immediately supported by a court order. 

Any funds Department of Justice, in association with the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Centre, who can prove and trace the funds that individual sellers have amassed from the sale of counterfeits, they can be turned over to the respected brand houses who filed the suit. 

This sent a very strong message to the brands but this current case could be sending a stronger one to the individual sellers.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller


RELATED ARTICLES
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Taobao Marketplace Teams up with Louis Vuitton to Combat Counterfeits
» Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping counterfeiters
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion

Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case

Gucci Runway AW09

> U.S. judge found bank in contempt, fined it $50,000 a day
> Gucci sought bank records of counterfeiters in China

Bank of China Ltd. turned over records in a case brought by Gucci America Inc. after a U.S. judge fined it $50,000 a day for not complying with subpoenas seeking information about Chinese makers of counterfeit luxury goods reports Bloomberg.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in New York found the Beijing-based bank in contempt in November for disobeying orders to turn over account information Gucci wanted to help it trace and recover money from the sale of counterfeits. Bank of China claimed Sullivan lacked the authority to order it to produce evidence and said doing so would force it to violate China’s banking laws.

Sullivan’s order cited the bank’s “refusal to comply with U.S. law, while it continues to receive the benefits attendant to its banking activity in the United States.” He said the bank was “flouting” his orders.

"By making today’s document production, BOC has complied with the court’s orders and believes it has purged its contempt," David Esseks, a lawyer for the bank, said in a letter to Sullivan on Wednesday. Esseks said Bank of China believes the document production means it is no longer liable for the daily sanction.

Bank of China, which is controlled by the Chinese government, is one of the biggest banks in the world, with global assets of about $2.5 trillion, $65 billion of which are held by five branches in the U.S.

Brett Philbin, the bank’s spokesman at public relations firm Edelman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday’s letter. Floriane Geroudet, a spokeswoman for Gucci’s Paris-based parent, Kering SA, didn’t immediately return an e-mail after business hours there.

The case is Gucci America Inc. v. Weixing Li, 10-cv-04974, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).



✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» YSL Settles Ain't Laurent Lawsuit
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

YSL Settles Ain't Laurent Lawsuit

YVES SAINT LAURENT has settled its lawsuit against parody T-shirt company What About Yves. The French house took exception to the production of merchandise bearing the words "Ain't Laurent Without Yves" in reaction to creative director Hedi Slimane's decision to rebrand the company without the founder's forename, asserting that the items were guilty of "trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition".

What About Yves. You may recall that YSL filed suit against the company and its founder, Jeanine Heller, this past April for manufacturing and selling t-shirts and sweatshirts that read, Ain’t Laurent Without Yves. The Paris-based company, which dropped the “Yves” from the name of its revamped ready-to-wear collection in 2012 when creative director Hedi Slimane came on board, alleged claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

Things got interesting when after YSL sent Heller a number of letters alerting her of such intellectual property charges. According to YSL’s complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York court, after a number of letters that YSL sent Heller on the matter went unanswered, Heller finally reached out to the design house's counsel, denied any wrongdoing, and offered to sell her Ain't Laurent Without Yves trademark to them. (Yes, Heller filed to federally register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but was ultimately rejected due to its similarity to a number of existing trademarks belonging to YSL). All the while, Heller continued to sell the allegedly infringing t-shirts to retailers including famed Paris boutique, Colette, with which YSL ultimately cut ties as a result of its stocking of the t-shirt.

After settling a similar lawsuit with Chanel this past year (even though the shirts at issue

in that case are still available for sale on the What About Yves website), Heller settled the case with YSL earlier this month. According to the docket for the Southern District of New York court, the case was voluntarily dismissed on January 12th, and while it appears that Heller agreed to remove the YSL tees, there is no word on what the monetary component of the settlement is as reported by The Fashion Law.


YSL has been bombarded with complaints from dissatisfied fans after unveiling the new Saint Laurent Paris logo on Facebook earlier this week. The brand shared a photo of a box bearing the new logo on their official page - which, despite receiving almost 3,000 Likes so far, has attracted a slew of negative comments.

"Hard to believe such a poor decision has been made, which can only damage the brand," says Chris Dickman, while Molly McGlew adds: "This is so boring and genuinely disappointing."

"Go back to the old logo, the new one lacks imagination," comments Adi Elias. "I'm not a fan of the new logo, but I can see what the brand was aiming for," adds  Lucy Geremin. "But I really do think the Yves or Y was quite important and iconic. The new logo doesn't represent the same brand to me."

But not everyone shares the same view: "What Hedi proposes is both new and old, looking forward but with respect for the old," comments Nick Byrne. "YSL and the full name in the same script were only used for Haute Couture. The ready-to-wear used the same typeface which Hedi has proposed."


"Very fresh, modern, contemporary... of the moment," adds Ian Edwards. "It speaks of an austere, inconspicuous, but highly elegant luxury."

Heller has had a busy year in litigation, after Chanel took issue with a double C-printed T-shirt that she was selling - a case that was also settled out of court. She currently still retails the double C print - along with parodies of the Dior, Hermès and LVMH logos - so it's unlikely that this is the last time we'll hear her name in connection with trademark-infringement accusations.

The settlement comes at a time when the fashion industry is debating the future of Yves Saint Laurent creative director Slimane, despite repeated assertions by the brand that he is going nowhere. The designer is said to have personally objected to the What About Yves pieces so strongly that he chose to withdraw the entire Saint Laurent collection from Parisian boutique Colette in 2013, simply because it also carried the parody sweaters.



✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping Counterfeiters

Makers of expensive bags, clothes and watches are fighting fakery in the courts. But the battle seems to be getting tougher

THE grand golden doors of 500 Pearl Street, in Manhattan, have welcomed such glamorous names as Hermès, Tiffany & Co and Kering, a French conglomerate whose treasures include Gucci and Bottega Veneta. The building is not a posh hotel or department store. It is the federal court for the Southern District of New York, a favoured battleground for the decidedly unglamorous war against counterfeit goods. As reported by the business section of the economist (August 2015)

The court is now the venue for Kering’s suit against Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce giant. Kering alleges that Alibaba helps fakers sell goods on its websites. The French firm is not the only one to be incensed. On July 17th the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) demanded that Alibaba crack down on counterfeits. Alibaba insists it has extensive measures in place to do just that. It is trying to distance itself from counterfeiters, who are also accused by Kering. On August 6th Alibaba plans to argue to the court that it risks being unfairly implicated as a co-conspirator. A bitter trial looks likely.

The fight against copycats has been long and arduous. Kering’s suit is the industry’s most important in a decade—Alibaba has more than 1 billion product listings and aspires to reach consumers around the world. But its sites are hardly the only places shoppers can find copies. Fake sales are proliferating online, with counterfeiters becoming more technologically adept, more difficult to track and harder to pursue in court.

Counterfeit sales are, by definition, difficult to tally. Last year American border officials nabbed copies that, had they been genuine, would have been worth $1.2 billion. Their European Union counterparts seized €768m ($1 billion) of fakes in 2013. But these were surely a fraction of the counterfeits being peddled. Estimates for the total value of fakes sold worldwide each year go as high as $1.8 trillion.

The deluge of fakes includes everything from software and medicine to detergent and car parts. On July 26th, for example, Chinese authorities said police had raided a factory turning out huge quantities of iPhone copies. Nevertheless, watches, bags, clothing, jewellery and perfume make up most of the goods seized at borders (see chart). On July 21st the European Commission reported that lost sales due to fake clothes and accessories amounted to 10% of the industry’s revenue in Europe. This makes luxury firms shudder. They cherish their reputations for quality and exclusivity, explains Antonio Achille of the Boston Consulting Group. Ubiquitous, flimsy copies undermine them.

Economist.com

The problem has grown more complex as the fakery business has moved online. America’s trade representative predicted in April that online sales of pirated goods might exceed those in physical markets, adding glumly: “Enforcement authorities, unfortunately, face difficulties in responding to this trend.” Online, counterfeiters can stay anonymous, reach across borders and constantly launch new websites to evade legal action. Governments have a devilish time tracking fakes sold online and delivered by post, explains Armando Branchini of Altagamma, the trade group for Italian luxury firms. Fakes shipped in bulk, destined to be sold in physical shops, are hard enough for border guards to spot. “But when it’s a matter of millions of parcels, each with a pair of shoes or bag or shirt,” Mr Branchini sighs, “it’s quite impossible to check.”

Since it is so difficult to fight both fake-goods websites and the counterfeiting operations behind them—if you shut one factory, another will crop up nearby—luxury-goods firms are increasingly taking aim at the legitimate firms that facilitate the business of counterfeiters, such as auction websites, internet-domain registries and payment processors. Sometimes brand-owners seek these firms’ co-operation in court. Sometimes they sue them.

This has had mixed success. In 2004 Tiffany claimed that eBay was liable for the counterfeit sales on its site. eBay retorted that it could not prevent every illicit post, though it would work to remove them. Courts agreed. eBay and Google, which has also been the target of lawsuits, have systems to fight dubious sellers and advertisers. Neither, however, is foolproof.

Alibaba and the forty fakers

According to Kering’s lawsuit, Alibaba poses a new challenge. On eBay, a counterfeiter might auction one or two handbags at a time. Kering alleges that one wholesaler on Alibaba required a minimum purchase of 500 fake Gucci watches and claimed it could deliver up to 8m each month. Brand-owners tremble at the spectre of Alibaba’s 8.5m sellers hawking masses of counterfeits both within China and around the world. Kering’s investigators, for example, bought fake Gucci sneakers on Alibaba’s Taobao.com and had them shipped to New York. Kering alleges that Alibaba not only provides a platform for these sales, but encourages them. Kering complains that if you type “replica” in the search bar in Alibaba.com, the site’s algorithm will suggest “wristwatches”.

Alibaba counters that it, too, is a victim of counterfeiters and is working to fight them. The company has more than 2,000 staff devoted to the problem. They pore over dodgy listings flagged up by Alibaba’s algorithms and by brand-owners. In the run-up to its public offering last year, the firm removed 90m listings. Indeed Alibaba has acquired some weighty partners—it has signed agreements with Louis Vuitton, Coach and others to co-operate on fighting counterfeits. But its disputes look likely to heat up. The AAFA wants Alibaba to set up an automated system to take down dubious listings immediately, a demand that is unlikely to be met. The fight with Kering will continue. The two parties have already tried and failed to reach agreement outside court.

Meanwhile sales of counterfeits continue to sprawl across the internet. For example, it is common for Chinese consumers to dodge the high price of luxury goods in their own country by buying them on so-called daigou websites: a shopper might buy a handbag in Europe, then resell it on one of these websites for more than the European retail price but less than the Chinese one. Many products on such sites are genuine. Many are not.

More pervasive are the sites that pose as legitimate sellers of discounted goods. They may have domain names registered in one country, servers in another, payment-processing elsewhere and shipping from yet another place, according to MarkMonitor, which helps companies protect their brands online. Roxanne Elings, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine, says one counterfeit outfit may run as many as 14,000 websites.

Firms have had some success in battling these sites, again by focusing their attention on legitimate companies that serve them. In 2010 Ms Elings helped North Face and Polo Ralph Lauren obtain court orders for domain registries to take down networks of rogue sites, and for PayPal to turn over fakers’ assets. Tory Burch, Hermès and Michael Kors won similar cases in 2011 and 2012.

Since then, however, counterfeiters have become more slippery. Ms Elings says that networks of sites are using multiple registries and myriad fake names. Joseph Gioconda, a lawyer who has represented Hermès, Michael Kors and Lululemon, says that catching up with copycats is daunting when their assets are held outside America. Kering and Tiffany had sought to freeze counterfeiters’ accounts at Chinese banks, but last year an American court refused to do so. That will make it harder to obtain foreign records that might expose counterfeit rings.

The role of consumers in all this is complex. Some are looking for the real thing at discount prices, and are deceived. Others are knowingly hunting for fakes. Both types may regret their penny-pinching. The most troubling recent trend is that online counterfeiters have discovered a new source of revenue. Some of their sites have no goods to sell, real or fake. They are simply out to steal unwitting shoppers’ card details, a business that can enjoy higher margins than any handbag.

From the print edition: Business

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Surge in Counterfeit via Luxury Consignment Websites

Luxury Consignments websites swelling the sale of fakes

DELORTAE AGENCY is the UK's first and leading luxury authentication and appraisal specialists and last year charted the biggest rise in counterfeit and fake luxury goods from consignment websites and looks to continue throughout 2016.

As consumers use the internet in search of a luxury handbag or accessory, the rise in consignment websites have increased to a prolific rate.

Many of the luxury brand handbags and accessories we examine are counterfeit, said Taelin Lambert Assistant to Delortae Agency Luxury Chief Authentication and Appraisal specialist.

Many are being purchased by UK consumers from consignment websites in both Europe and USA that claim the items they sell are from sellers that use their websites.

This upsurge is causing a huge problem for the UK luxury consumers who attempt to get their money back from these companies who hide behind the distance between the purchaser and the seller.

On the fake items we examine, Mr Lambert went on to say, "are not even the more sophisticated types and clearly are not the quality and sometimes even the design of the brand purported".

Many of these web sites claim to have 'in house authenticators' that will examine the item prior to being dispatched to the buyer by the seller. 

But the truth is, many are not checking the items as claimed because the consignment sites are allowing the items to be dispatched by the seller directly.

Delortae Agency, who is known and respected by major brands due to consistent commitment to brand protection world-wide, believe UK consumers are being targeted and often buyers do not even receive the items listed on the site but something of far less quality by using old style 'bait and switch' techniques.

Delortae Agency have been inundated by request from purchasers, not only from the UK, to appraise these fake items, and are appalled at the excuses buyers are facing when challenging these sites to get their money refunded.

There is no doubt that counterfeiters are using these consignment sites, who distance themselves from the consumer by stating that their members are listing the goods and have to confirm their authenticity, therefore absolving themselves from responsibility.

The 'Money Back Guarantee' is worthless as the consignment websites refuse to accept the item is counterfeit. 

So what can the consumer do? Having forked out a small fortune to purchase the item and additional shipping if they suspect they have bought a fake? We advise you try the following and then if only all else fails, consult a professional to assist with authentication as a last resort, try to avoid any additional charges, as companies will have a fee but you may be able to claim this back against the seller.

- If there is a 'Money Back Guarantee' get it confirmed in writing that it is 'no quibble' and the time for a refund is from when you receive the product and not from dispatch.

- Approach the website and request a refund in the first instance if you suspect the item is fake.

- If met with a refusal, remember you have the law on your side, and buy with supported third party payment merchant or Credit Card for additional buyer protection.

- Get your item professionally appraised and evidence confirmed in writing

This is a growing online problem from last year that we suspect will only increase throughout 2016.



✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES
» YSL Settles Ain't Laurent Lawsuit
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation
» Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit