Selling Lego on Amazon.com

[Darth_Raichu]

2 hours ago, Bricklectic said:

not Colorado. Their biz model is mostly quick flipping. small fish. I dont see a clear reason why they would pursue one random guy, There must be over 1k sellers of lego on amazon and its easy peezy lemon squeezy for this ambulance chaser law firm to simply look them up and send letters willy nilly. its really odd.

Their argument and precedent they quote from shell is really slimy though. Sickens me that they twist logic just to chase small time sellers. apparently they do this for many brands per my quick google search.

Here is a dumb question, does he use the word "LEGO" anywhere in his Amazon store name or in the name of entity / corporation / Llc used to sell on Amzn ?

[Phil B]

From what my IANAL mind can make from this letter: He seems to be selling something that LEGO ("LSI" although I never heard of that acronym - I only know TLG) does not produce themselves, and marks it as LEGO. Perhaps one of his listings got flagged for being suspected counterfeit? Or perhaps he sells parted out LEGO sets in custom listings (e.g. minifigures from sets which LEGO does not sell individually)? 

The extracts shown hint at selling items outside of the bundle LEGO has themselves QA'd, and they cannot take that liability to their brand name.

[Bricklectic]

5 minutes ago, Phil B said:

From what my IANAL mind can make from this letter: He seems to be selling something that LEGO ("LSI" although I never heard of that acronym - I only know TLG) does not produce themselves, and marks it as LEGO. Perhaps one of his listings got flagged for being suspected counterfeit? Or perhaps he sells parted out LEGO sets in custom listings (e.g. minifigures from sets which LEGO does not sell individually)? 

The extracts shown hint at selling items outside of the bundle LEGO has themselves QA'd, and they cannot take that liability to their brand name.

its standard Vorys playbook, they pretend first sale doctrine doesnt apply cuz theres some mystical qa element that the reseller cant produce.  utter rubbish. to your q., guy just flipped new releases like many others. nothing custom or unusual. you can find very similair letters online for other brands. theyre infamous for their tactics, literally pioneers in this field

[TheBrickClique]

3 minutes ago, Bricklectic said:

its standard Vorys playbook, they pretend first sale doctrine doesnt apply cuz theres some mystical qa element that the reseller cant produce.  utter rubbish. to your q., guy just flipped new releases like many others. nothing custom or unusual. you can find very similair letters online for other brands. theyre infamous for their tactics, literally pioneers in this field

Only need to look at the thread of packaging excellence to question how much quality control LEGO really has over their authorized resellers…

[gmpirate]

Ok, so for FBM I only have UPS selected as an option.  Last week I received an order with USPS selected.  I was able to switch to UPS.  Now today I received an order with Fedex Home Delivery.  I cannot switch to UPS Ground because it says it will not meet promised delivery date.  Promised delivery times are automated by Amazon.

Yes, I know we're not supposed to switch but how are these orders coming through with other delivery methods?

[joesnow2005]

14 minutes ago, gmpirate said:

Ok, so for FBM I only have UPS selected as an option.  Last week I received an order with USPS selected.  I was able to switch to UPS.  Now today I received an order with Fedex Home Delivery.  I cannot switch to UPS Ground because it says it will not meet promised delivery date.  Promised delivery times are automated by Amazon.

Yes, I know we're not supposed to switch but how are these orders coming through with other delivery methods?

Some rural areas only have either Fedex or UPS as the only option other than USPS. Maybe this is the reason.

[redcell]

3 hours ago, Phil B said:

From what my IANAL mind can make from this letter: He seems to be selling something that LEGO ("LSI" although I never heard of that acronym - I only know TLG) does not produce themselves, and marks it as LEGO. Perhaps one of his listings got flagged for being suspected counterfeit? Or perhaps he sells parted out LEGO sets in custom listings (e.g. minifigures from sets which LEGO does not sell individually)? 

The extracts shown hint at selling items outside of the bundle LEGO has themselves QA'd, and they cannot take that liability to their brand name.

Lego Systems Inc. is the name of the legal entity in the U.S. that sells LEGO products.

The letter isn't saying that the recipient is selling knockoffs or counterfeits, but is saying that he is misappropriating the LEGO trademark by selling LEGO products outside of LSI's authorized distribution channels.  The underlying theory is that LSI takes measures within its authorized distribution channel to ensure the quality of its products and the consumer experience, and that any products sold outside of that channel have been altered because they don't come with the same set of assurances that products sold within the channel come with.  I was not familiar with this line of argument before seeing the post about this letter over the weekend, but it does appear that courts have accepted it and found trademark infringement in similar situations.

If TLG is serious about getting better control over the online sale of its products, my guess is that we would likely see them add some type of warranty to their products in the coming years that doesn't extend beyond the initial sale of the product.  Doing so would provide a much stronger legal foundation for this approach.

As much as many of us may want to, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the threat that this poses.  You really don't need to look any farther than threads like the one about counterfeits being sold on WM this year or the multitude of posts over the years about sellers getting customer returns that have been tampered with to know that there are plenty of facts that TLG can marshal to document why it is so critical for them to ensure that each product that reaches the hands of a consumer has not passed outside of its authorized distribution channels.

3 hours ago, Bricklectic said:

its standard Vorys playbook, they pretend first sale doctrine doesnt apply cuz theres some mystical qa element that the reseller cant produce.  utter rubbish. to your q., guy just flipped new releases like many others. nothing custom or unusual. you can find very similair letters online for other brands. theyre infamous for their tactics, literally pioneers in this field

Did the guy who received the letter sell much older LEGO that had already retired?  If this effort is focused on people reselling current product, that would be a much different situation than if it is broader and includes people selling retired product as well.  I suspect we should get an idea of which way this is heading pretty quickly given that many of us here should get a similar letter if they're taking the broader approach. 

[Mark Twain]

Did the guy who received the letter sell much older LEGO that had already retired?  If this effort is focused on people reselling current product, that would be a much different situation than if it is broader and includes people selling retired product as well.  I suspect we should get an idea of which way this is heading pretty quickly given that many of us here should get a similar letter if they're taking the broader approach. 

He specified in an earlier post that his friend was QFLL recent sets, e.g. Home Alone and Titanic, I believe. It isn’t clear to me why Lego is pursuing this strategy instead of shutting down alternate listings through Amazon instead of legally sending out a letter. My guess is a customer complained to Lego CS about the price of the listing for one of the newly released sets and sent someone a link and that what got this ball rolling.

Still, the language is far too broad when it asks him to remove product from all websites when Lego allows 3p sellers to list the very items as new on their own marketplace. I dunno know if the law firm is even aware that Lego purchased BrickLink or that it exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeff_14]

2 hours ago, redcell said:

Lego Systems Inc. is the name of the legal entity in the U.S. that sells LEGO products.

The letter isn't saying that the recipient is selling knockoffs or counterfeits, but is saying that he is misappropriating the LEGO trademark by selling LEGO products outside of LSI's authorized distribution channels.  The underlying theory is that LSI takes measures within its authorized distribution channel to ensure the quality of its products and the consumer experience, and that any products sold outside of that channel have been altered because they don't come with the same set of assurances that products sold within the channel come with.  I was not familiar with this line of argument before seeing the post about this letter over the weekend, but it does appear that courts have accepted it and found trademark infringement in similar situations.

If TLG is serious about getting better control over the online sale of its products, my guess is that we would likely see them add some type of warranty to their products in the coming years that doesn't extend beyond the initial sale of the product.  Doing so would provide a much stronger legal foundation for this approach.

As much as many of us may want to, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the threat that this poses.  You really don't need to look any farther than threads like the one about counterfeits being sold on WM this year or the multitude of posts over the years about sellers getting customer returns that have been tampered with to know that there are plenty of facts that TLG can marshal to document why it is so critical for them to ensure that each product that reaches the hands of a consumer has not passed outside of its authorized distribution channels.

Did the guy who received the letter sell much older LEGO that had already retired?  If this effort is focused on people reselling current product, that would be a much different situation than if it is broader and includes people selling retired product as well.  I suspect we should get an idea of which way this is heading pretty quickly given that many of us here should get a similar letter if they're taking the broader approach. 

This legal reasoning also explains why Amazon periodically asks us for quality certificates. I’d say almost every one I received was for an old Lego set that wasn’t available on Amazon (ie a GWP promotional set or exclusive). Same thing with Star Wars black series figures. They only asked about the exclusives. 

[Darth_Raichu]

6 hours ago, Bricklectic said:

its standard Vorys playbook, they pretend first sale doctrine doesnt apply cuz theres some mystical qa element that the reseller cant produce.  utter rubbish. to your q., guy just flipped new releases like many others. nothing custom or unusual. you can find very similair letters online for other brands. theyre infamous for their tactics, literally pioneers in this field

Did your friend use the word "LEGO" anywhere in his store or legal entity name?  It is weird LEGO would do all of these to shut down 1 seller.  However, we have seen LEGO taking down websites and Bricklink stores that used the word "LEGO" anywhere in their names. 

There is a slim chance the law company put somewhat incorrect reason in that cease and desist letter to your friend.  At the end of the day, the law firm does not necessarily care why your friend's store is closed as long as it is closed.

[Shortbus311]

The first sale doctrine only protects unauthorized resellers if the products sold are materially the same as those the manufacturer would sell. Based on what I read online manufacturers try to fight the first sale doctrine in court on the basis that their products come with services which cannot be rendered by unauthorized sellers hence making the products sold by unauthorized sellers as materially different. Known challenges to the first sale doctrine are for example warranty services that only authorized sellers can render, or in the case of Lego, quality controls. The quality control exception to the first sale doctrine when presented in court must be proven. Manufacturer cannot come up with fake quality control measures. It must be proven to the court that quality controls exist and are meaningful enough to make the product sold by unauthorized sellers materially different. Again, I think it is best to let an attorney who is verse with the first sale doctrine and known challenges to it gauge the validity of Vorys claims and offer best advise.

I just don't see what quality control measures TLG can say that they have in place for authorized sellers that unauthorized sellers wouldn't. The quoted Shell oil case is about a company selling bulk oil that was transported in tanker trucks and thus the product ran the risk of becoming contaminated. Lego in a manufacturers sealed box does not have that same risk.

I cannot think of any such quality control measures that Target would have (I work there PT one weekend every few months) that I do not have.

I would definitely be talking to a lawyer and setting up a go fund me or other such tool to help pay for legal fees. I would definitely chip in for something like that if I saw someone else's go fund me page.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[legorunner]

I don't claim to have any special insights, but here are some thoughts: I'm taking this seriously until there is reason to not worry about it. With the influx of sellers this year now that the Amazon gate is basically gone combined with more and more stock from big players, we have all noted that competition is tougher. I have sold through 90% of what I sent in this year for still healthy profits, but moving forward this will definitely be more difficult. I also think that it's only a matter of time before either Amazon or LEGO takes some sort of action (see below). So, I was already thinking about taking a few months off from purchasing until I saw how prices start to settle next year (minus unreal deals / the odd Walmart clearance because I'm a junky), and this pretty much seals the deal. 

I am of the opinion (again, no special insight) that having a healthy reselling community helps LEGO. In the short term it helps clear the shelves for new stock, and in the long term it helps maintain the idea that LEGO is a toy of quality that will retain a lot of its value, both for parents buying for their kids and now the growing adult community of consumers. High resell prices probably also creates some FOMO near retirement. That said, I think we could be at a point where the reselling levels would be considered unhealthy for the brand. When a set like King Boo goes on sale and literally hundreds of resellers list it on Amazon that week, you have a situation where a lot of consumers are going to remember the sale from a few days before and be pretty annoyed, as opposed to consumers 2 years from now who may know RRP but will not remember the discount. The shortage of new seasonal sets, etc, due to resellers has also got to frustrate LEGO. When you send consumers a lovely mail ad featuring Santa's Sleigh and Home Alone but they can only buy it from resellers, that is not a good look. I also expect that next year we will see a lot of sets retiring the year available at near RRP for a long time as the growing herd from this year realizes that this get rich quick scheme isn't as easy as it looks or are happy with a quick $5, and this will cannibalize sales of current sets more so than usual / make it harder for LEGO to predict stock levels. So, I would not be surprised if LEGO doesn't try to make a move to limit reselling. Oh, and the fiasco with those Walmart 3p sellers selling fake sets has got to raise alarm bells with LEGO. 

So, assuming for now that this is LEGO behind the letter / firm, what's the play? This could be the start of an all out war on resellers, a test to see how it plays out or a warning shot to everyone else, but it seems like it would be much easier just to get Amazon to gate everyone (unless they won't play ball).Why go after a small potato instead of a big fish? Maybe they are just targeting folks who QF current sets. Maybe they just want to thin the herd. Maybe we all get them by next summer. Maybe the end goal is to get resellers off of Amazon and only on Bricklink where they can more easily do quality control. 

All and all, I'm interested in the conversation here and will definitely be following it closely. Mods, feel free to move all of this chatter to a new thread since there are still people coming here for selling an Amazon advice/ questions. Happy Holidays!

[Brystheguy]

47 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

I just don't see what quality control measures TLG can say that they have in place for authorized sellers that unauthorized sellers wouldn't. The quoted Shell oil case is about a company selling bulk oil that was transported in tanker trucks and thus the product ran the risk of becoming contaminated. Lego in a manufacturers sealed box does not have that same risk.

I cannot think of any such quality control measures that Target would have (I work there PT one weekend every few months) that I do not have.

I would definitely be talking to a lawyer and setting up a go fund me or other such tool to help pay for legal fees. I would definitely chip in for something like that if I saw someone else's go fund me page.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

I would say the only quality control measure would be that they can guarantee with a higher rate of confidence that what the consumer receives will be what it says it is. There's a higher chance that a third-party will sell a knock-off set versus a legitimate retailer such as Target or Wal-Mart. 

[brickology101]

I just don't see what quality control measures TLG can say that they have in place for authorized sellers that unauthorized sellers wouldn't. The quoted Shell oil case is about a company selling bulk oil that was transported in tanker trucks and thus the product ran the risk of becoming contaminated. Lego in a manufacturers sealed box does not have that same risk.

I cannot think of any such quality control measures that Target would have (I work there PT one weekend every few months) that I do not have.

I would definitely be talking to a lawyer and setting up a go fund me or other such tool to help pay for legal fees. I would definitely chip in for something like that if I saw someone else's go fund me page.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, a judge ultimately makes the call based on the claims and evidence the Lego group (Vorys) can present in court. Exceptions to the first sale doctrine always look outlandish but a judge can side by these claims. I read online that Vorys is good at what they are doing and they were successful once at winning at least one case in court regarding dismissing the first sale doctrine. Mainly, I read that they go after sellers who dismiss/ignore their C&D letters. These letters are scare tactics and no response or no action from the part of the seller makes it worse for the seller in court. If I was to receive such a letter I would probably have an attorney reply and accept the terms. Reselling Legos on Amazon is not a main source of income and not worth risking everything to battle in court for my right to sell Legos as an unauthorized seller, which fundamentally can be interpreted as being against the laws of trademarking. I am really concerned this is just the tip of an iceberg that is about to hit us as sellers. The huge increase in sellers on Amazon.com and counterfeit Legos on Walmart.com this year could very well be the genesis of Lego wanting to clean up the mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Twain]

1 hour ago, Shortbus311 said:

I just don't see what quality control measures TLG can say that they have in place for authorized sellers that unauthorized sellers wouldn't. The quoted Shell oil case is about a company selling bulk oil that was transported in tanker trucks and thus the product ran the risk of becoming contaminated. Lego in a manufacturers sealed box does not have that same risk.

I cannot think of any such quality control measures that Target would have (I work there PT one weekend every few months) that I do not have.

I would definitely be talking to a lawyer and setting up a go fund me or other such tool to help pay for legal fees. I would definitely chip in for something like that if I saw someone else's go fund me page.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

The greatest QC measure is likely a contract that reserves the right to withdraw selling privileges if TLG deems any loss of QC. But I'm certain they could go down the rabbit hole of items, from how a 3p seller stores product to how they ship and fulfill it. Lego, along with any of their retail customers (WM, Amazon, Target, etc.) all ship in boxes with their trademark. 

[Bricklectic]

3 minutes ago, Mark Twain said:

The greatest QC measure is likely a contract that reserves the right to withdraw selling privileges if TLG deems any loss of QC. But I'm certain they could go down the rabbit hole of items, from how a 3p seller stores product to how they ship and fulfill it. Lego, along with any of their retail customers (WM, Amazon, Target, etc.) all ship in boxes with their trademark. 

The QC argument is bogus. Taken to its natural conclusion, no one would be able to sell ANY product on ANY platform, including ebay, craigslist or FB. Every single manufacturer can make the same exact claims regarding authenticity, shipping etc. Where would the first sales doctrine apply if their argument would actually be valid.

[river41]

10 minutes ago, Bricklectic said:

The QC argument is bogus. Taken to its natural conclusion, no one would be able to sell ANY product on ANY platform, including ebay, craigslist or FB. Every single manufacturer can make the same exact claims regarding authenticity, shipping etc. Where would the first sales doctrine apply if their argument would actually be valid.

The issue is how a court of law looks at it and not your opinion. Vorys has been doing this for years so there should be case law about it. I know one person that was sued but over there the main argument was that the company would not honor the warranty if it would be sold by a third party although they did bring in the qc. I know many many people that got letters from vorys from various brands and it didn't lead to a lawsuit. A letter is easy to send a lawsuit is a much bigger step. However a lot of people will be scared off from a letter .There are some brands that are very aggressive and sue the question is if this continues would lego take that next step 

[redcell]

20 minutes ago, Bricklectic said:

The QC argument is bogus. Taken to its natural conclusion, no one would be able to sell ANY product on ANY platform, including ebay, craigslist or FB. Every single manufacturer can make the same exact claims regarding authenticity, shipping etc. Where would the first sales doctrine apply if their argument would actually be valid.

At least one judge in Colorado thinks differently: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20211112j56

[redcell]

5 minutes ago, river41 said:

The issue is how a court of law looks at it and not your opinion. Vorys has been doing this for years so there should be case law about it. I know one person that was sued but over there the main argument was that the company would not honor the warranty if it would be sold by a third party although they did bring in the qc. I know many many people that got letters from vorys from various brands and it didn't lead to a lawsuit. A letter is easy to send a lawsuit is a much bigger step. However a lot of people will be scared off from a letter .There are some brands that are very aggressive and sue the question is if this continues would lego take that next step 

Another question is how much legal precedent Amazon, Walmart, eBay, and the other marketplaces would require before blocking a seller from selling any products for trademark infringement based solely on the fact that the seller is not authorized by the manufacturer.  

[Bold-Arrow]

1 minute ago, redcell said:

At least one judge in Colorado thinks differently: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20211112j56

Any thoughts on why just one ( or a small minority ) seller got the letter so far ? It is pretty easy with the way Amazon displays the names and addresses to just blanket everyone with a letter. 

Bricklink is also an interesting case though I am no legal expert 

[jeff_14]

2 minutes ago, redcell said:

Another question is how much legal precedent Amazon, Walmart, eBay, and the other marketplaces would require before blocking a seller from selling any products for trademark infringement based solely on the fact that the seller is not authorized by the manufacturer.  

I’d be curious to see if the big boys would take action to oppose this. These efforts are an assault on their business as well as ours. Bezos is just as likely to think “If anyone is going to harm my third party sellers it’s going to be me. Mwah-ha-ha.”

[redcell]

9 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

Any thoughts on why just one ( or a small minority ) seller got the letter so far ? It is pretty easy with the way Amazon displays the names and addresses to just blanket everyone with a letter. 

Bricklink is also an interesting case though I am no legal expert 

Not really any thoughts on that other than someone has to be the first.  I'm curious whether that person is just the leading edge of a bigger wave of letters that is getting ready to hit all of us or was part of a curated group of sellers that were picked as possible test cases.  I'm also curious whether there was some aspect of that seller's profile in terms of what he was selling that brought his name to the top of the list. 

I suspect that, in the near term, Bricklink may provide the best insights on what's going on.  If LEGO is really moving against unauthorized sellers, Bricklink is the one marketplace that they exercise complete control over by virtue of their ownership...so if they start blocking anyone who's not authorized from selling certain products, but not others, that would give some insight into what they're targeting with this effort. 

 

[jbacunn]

33 minutes ago, redcell said:

I suspect that, in the near term, Bricklink may provide the best insights on what's going on.  If LEGO is really moving against unauthorized sellers, Bricklink is the one marketplace that they exercise complete control over by virtue of their ownership...so if they start blocking anyone who's not authorized from selling certain products, but not others, that would give some insight into what they're targeting with this effort. 

 

I could see Lego being upset about people quick flipping their sets especially during the holiday season but you can quick flip on Bricklink also. If I were Lego and this was my main concern, the first thing I would do is block all listings on Bricklink for sets that are still currently being produced. That would be a reasonable action for them to take but they haven't done it yet. 

[brickology101]

Any thoughts on why just one ( or a small minority ) seller got the letter so far ? It is pretty easy with the way Amazon displays the names and addresses to just blanket everyone with a letter. 
Bricklink is also an interesting case though I am no legal expert 

Here is a thought: Did that seller receive one ore more negative feedbacks in recent weeks/months ? The type of feedback about quality not shipment related. If Lego was to go after resellers on the basis of quality control being subpar I would start with sellers that have such complaints readily available in their profile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Twain]

Here is a thought: Did that seller receive one ore more negative feedbacks in recent weeks/months ? The type of feedback about quality not shipment related. If Lego was to go after resellers on the basis of quality control being subpar I would start with sellers that have such complaints readily available in their profile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d say it’s likely listing related. He disclosed that he was QFLLing new sets, like Home Alone and ATT. Here are the two reviews under the Home Alone set, note the # of people that marked them as helpful reviews.

Lego Ideas Home Alone Exclusive Building Set 21330 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09L82XBMB/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_EHXZJ9TXP9ACC6XM6AZJ




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk