Where to go from here ?(manufacturer thinks my goods are stolen)

[justalayman]

No, I did not say to not contact an attorney, even accepting it should be the first First. In fact I think I agreed with that several times. I am simply stating given the situation it will almost certainly involve the employer and a "heads up" might actuslly be appreciated by the employer.

If billy is doing something wrong, then there is probably no salvation for his job anyway so if he has done something wrong, personally i couldn't care less whether he gets burned or not but if he is on the up and up, I can't see anything but good coming from involving the employer.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It appears the employee sale is supposed to be for personal use, not resale on Ebay and OP does not want to be fired for violating company policy. I suggest he contact his lawyer, if he does not want to involve his employer.

 

[quincy]

No, I did not say to not contact an attorney, even accepting it should be the first First. In fact I think I agreed with that several times. I am simply stating given the situation it will almost certainly involve the employer and a "heads up" might actuslly be appreciated by the employer.

If billy is doing something wrong, then there is probably no salvation for his job anyway so if he has done something wrong, personally i couldn't care less whether he gets burned or not but if he is on the up and up, I can't see anything but good coming from involving the employer.

The items sold by Bill originated with his employer. The items are suspected by Gillette to be stolen. So, yes, the employer will more than likely eventually be involved, this whether Bill hands over information to Gillette now or waits until later.

BUT, because the letter from Gillette seems to imply that Bill or someone Bill knows is involved in the theft of and subsequent sale of stolen goods, it is a criminal matter. Although the employer might appreciate a "heads up" from Bill, if the employer is stealing goods or selling them illegally, Bill does not want to give this employer any heads up.

Again, and we agree on this, Bill should consult with his attorney before doing anything.

 

[justalayman]

The items sold by Bill originated with his employer. The items are suspected by Gillette to be stolen. So, yes, the employer will more than likely eventually be involved, this whether Bill hands over information to Gillette now or waits until later.

BUT, because the letter from Gillette seems to imply that Bill or someone Bill knows is involved in the theft of and subsequent sale of stolen goods, it is a criminal matter. Although the employer might appreciate a "heads up" from Bill, if the employer is stealing goods or selling them illegally, Bill does not want to give this employer any heads up.

Again, and we agree on this, Bill should consult with his attorney before doing anything.

i see where you are and what I think you are missing. (You're too nice sometimes Quincy)

There is almost no chance the employer is guilty of what they are selling as being stolen. Gillette is making that claim because they cannot identify where the product came from and ((my presumption) what is being sold is prohibited from being sold by Gillette. Therefore Gillette is making the claim it is stolen becasue they trust their wholesalers that they would not allow items prohibited from being sold to be sold.

So, the most likely situation is;

Even of the products are not stolen, they are controlled tightly enough that they cannot be sold legally on the market as they are. Since no wholesaler would allow this the logical answer is the products were stolen at some point in the distribution chain.

The truth is more likely What op has done is likely prohibited by his employer or at best an ignorant mistake by the op.


The only question that makes any real difference now is whether op obtained the products from his employer legally.

Op claims he has so the ultimate solution will be from the employer becoming aware of the situation and the eventual communication between employer and Gillette. If this is the situation, the sooner employer and Gillette are aware of it, the sooner they can put those $500/hour attorneys back in their cages. I suspect employer and Gillette would enjoy saving money

Under that situation Op is an innocent party here and should not be subjected to the scrutiny and spending untold $$$$ defending himself when he did nothing wrong but until the employer is involved billy could face civil action or even criminal prosecution.

That is why i have no problem with op seeking legal counsel, expediance would be high priority.


If op stole products, then i just don't care what happens to op.

 

[quincy]

i see where you are and what I think you are missing. (You're too nice sometimes Quincy)

There is almost no chance the employer is guilty of what they are selling as being stolen. Gillette is making that claim because they cannot identify where the product came from and ((my presumption) what is being sold is prohibited from being sold by Gillette. Therefore Gillette is making the claim it is stolen becasue they trust their wholesalers that they would not allow items prohibited from being sold to be sold.

So, the most likely situation is;

Even of the products are not stolen, they are controlled tightly enough that they cannot be sold legally on the market as they are. Since no wholesaler would allow this the logical answer is the products were stolen at some point in the distribution chain.

The truth is more likely What op has done is likely prohibited by his employer or at best an ignorant mistake by the op.


The only question that makes any real difference now is whether op obtained the products from his employer legally.

Op claims he has so the ultimate solution will be from the employer becoming aware of the situation and the eventual communication between employer and Gillette. If this is the situation, the sooner employer and Gillette are aware of it, the sooner they can put those $500/hour attorneys back in their cages. I suspect employer and Gillette would enjoy saving money

Under that situation Op is an innocent party here and should not be subjected to the scrutiny and spending untold $$$$ defending himself when he did nothing wrong but until the employer is involved billy could face civil action or even criminal prosecution.

That is why i have no problem with op seeking legal counsel, expediance would be high priority.


If op stole products, then i just don't care what happens to op.

I don't know enough to know if anyone has done anything wrong. What I can imagine or what I might suspect means very little. There are all sorts of possibilities, many of which might be dismissed with more facts.

I just know that if there is a chance that Bill has committed a crime (and the letter from Gillette implies that he might have, unwittingly or not), he will want to speak to an attorney before he speaks to his employer or the law firm representing Gillette. The chips will eventually fall where they may.

Best case scenario, perhaps: Gillette is forced to apologize to Bill for causing him any grief over what Gillette discovers were erroneous assumptions on their part.

 

[Billconnelly]

i see where you are and what I think you are missing. (You're too nice sometimes Quincy)

There is almost no chance the employer is guilty of what they are selling as being stolen. Gillette is making that claim because they cannot identify where the product came from and ((my presumption) what is being sold is prohibited from being sold by Gillette. Therefore Gillette is making the claim it is stolen becasue they trust their wholesalers that they would not allow items prohibited from being sold to be sold.

So, the most likely situation is;

Even of the products are not stolen, they are controlled tightly enough that they cannot be sold legally on the market as they are. Since no wholesaler would allow this the logical answer is the products were stolen at some point in the distribution chain.

The truth is more likely What op has done is likely prohibited by his employer or at best an ignorant mistake by the op.


The only question that makes any real difference now is whether op obtained the products from his employer legally.

Op claims he has so the ultimate solution will be from the employer becoming aware of the situation and the eventual communication between employer and Gillette. If this is the situation, the sooner employer and Gillette are aware of it, the sooner they can put those $500/hour attorneys back in their cages. I suspect employer and Gillette would enjoy saving money

Under that situation Op is an innocent party here and should not be subjected to the scrutiny and spending untold $$$$ defending himself when he did nothing wrong but until the employer is involved billy could face civil action or even criminal prosecution.

That is why i have no problem with op seeking legal counsel, expediance would be high priority.


If op stole products, then i just don't care what happens to op.

I think your jumping to conclusions based on what you imagine not what I said. Personally I think your advice is bad at best. I will go with Quincy's advice and retain legal counsel before moving forward.

 

[quincy]

I think your jumping to conclusions based on what you imagine not what I said. Personally I think your advice is bad at best. I will go with Quincy's advice and retain legal counsel before moving forward.

I believe everyone who responded to your thread recommended that you consult with an attorney in your area. I am happy to hear that this is what you intend to do.

If you have time to post back with what happens with Gillette, it would be nice to have an update.

Good luck.

 

[Billconnelly]

I believe everyone who responded to your thread recommended that you consult with an attorney in your area. I am happy to hear that this is what you intend to do.

If you have time to post back with what happens with Gillette, it would be nice to have an update.

Good luck.

I understand, I just don't appreciate people making assumptions that I possibly did something like steal this merchandise or had any inclination to do something against the law. I will be speaking with him on Tuesday, I will report back on this when I find out. Thank You all for your time

 

[xylene]

Gillette considers their full retail price to be the absolute price floor, they hate ebay sellers, and have a goon squad to bully ebayers.

I hope all good well with the lawyer, good luck.

 

[quincy]

I understand, I just don't appreciate people making assumptions that I possibly did something like steal this merchandise or had any inclination to do something against the law. I will be speaking with him on Tuesday, I will report back on this when I find out. Thank You all for your time

And I understand exactly what you mean, too, Bill. No one likes to have any blanks in their stories filled in with someone else's false assumptions. This is easier to do on a forum than one might suspect, though. I think all of the members on this forum have been guilty of it at one time or another.

That said, and risking filling in some blanks myself, I share with xylene a certain skepticism about Gillette's claims. Trademark holders can be an odd bunch. They are charged with policing the marketplace and enforcing their own rights in their brand names and products/services. No one does this for them. Some trademark holders are, as I said earlier, overzealous in their efforts to enforce their rights. If they do not protect their marks and their products, however, they risk losing these rights entirely. Sometimes trademark holders get it right. Sometimes trademark holders don't.

I will be interested in hearing back from you after your attorney has had a chance to personally review the matter. The attorney will advise you on how best to respond to the letter you received from Gillette.

Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

I think your jumping to conclusions based on what you imagine not what I said. Personally I think your advice is bad at best. I will go with Quincy's advice and retain legal counsel before moving forward.

I'm jumping to conclusions based on logic, common sense, and having worked with many companies that deal with manufacturers products in a wholesale or manufacturers situation.

Until the doctrine of first sale comes into play you can't market what you did as you did.







Whether expressed, implied, or failed fo prohibit through ignorance, I have little doubt your employer allowed you to purchase the products with the intent of allowing them to be sold.

I strongly suspect your employer is officially allows to sell products only as Gillette or other manufacturers specifically allows specifically to ensure the "first sale"'is a valid retail sale.


It's nice you will follow quincy's advice, which is identical to mine: yes, speak to an attorney.


Psycoduck's on the loose

Quack quack


Somebody should understand the difference between speculation and assumption. I assumed nothing. I speculate like a mad man.

 

[quincy]

I'm jumping to conclusions based on logic, common sense, and having worked with many companies that deal with manufacturers products in a wholesale or manufacturers situation.

Until the doctrine of first sale comes into play you can't market what you did as you did.







Whether expressed, implied, or failed fo prohibit through ignorance, I have little doubt your employer allowed you to purchase the products with the intent of allowing them to be sold.

I strongly suspect your employer is officially allows to sell products only as Gillette or other manufacturers specifically allows specifically to ensure the "first sale"'is a valid retail sale.


It's nice you will follow quincy's advice, which is identical to mine: yes, speak to an attorney.


Psycoduck's on the loose

Quack quack


Somebody should understand the difference between speculation and assumption. I assumed nothing. I speculate like a mad man.

You DO tend to speculate like a mad man at times, justalayman, and this can sometimes be a good thing (although also frustrating).

I still see no ducks.

 

[LdiJ]

I'm jumping to conclusions based on logic, common sense, and having worked with many companies that deal with manufacturers products in a wholesale or manufacturers situation.

Until the doctrine of first sale comes into play you can't market what you did as you did.

Whether expressed, implied, or failed fo prohibit through ignorance, I have little doubt your employer allowed you to purchase the products with the intent of allowing them to be sold.

I strongly suspect your employer is officially allows to sell products only as Gillette or other manufacturers specifically allows specifically to ensure the "first sale"'is a valid retail sale.

It's nice you will follow quincy's advice, which is identical to mine: yes, speak to an attorney.


Psycoduck's on the loose

Quack quack


Somebody should understand the difference between speculation and assumption. I assumed nothing. I speculate like a mad man.

The bolded is nonsense. You have no idea of what level the OP's employer is in the chain of distribution. The odds of a manufacturer like Gillette making direct sales to a retailer other than someone like Walmart or Target or any other very large retailers are slim to none. Most products sold go through at least one or two levels of distribution before they hit a retailer. You surely do not think that mom and pop shops buy products directly from a manufacturer?

 

[justalayman]

The bolded is nonsense. You have no idea of what level the OP's employer is in the chain of distribution. The odds of a manufacturer like Gillette making direct sales to a retailer other than someone like Walmart or Target or any other very large retailers are slim to none. Most products sold go through at least one or two levels of distribution before they hit a retailer. You surely do not think that mom and pop shops buy products directly from a manufacturer?

I never said they were a retailer. In fact everything I said was to the opposite. Since they are in the wholesale world they are controlled by restriction on sales. A distribution center is not a retailer and that is what is important.

I don't know where you got your crap about Gillette contacting anybody. So far the only contact has been from Gillette to op. I said his employer is whom is restricted by Gillette since they are not a retailer (at least at the point in discussion) their sales are restricted by the manufacturer. It is the manufacture that sets the ultimate rules prior to the first retail sale. That's why when they print: not for retail sale, they can enforce that, even if it has gone through multiple levels of wholesale entities.

 

[quincy]

Generally speaking, once a manufacturer sells to a retailer or a distributor (the resellers), the manufacturer no longer has control over the products sold. There can be contractual agreements that change this a bit. For example, a contract between the manufacturer and a reseller can include a condition that the reseller will not sell the manufacturer's product below a certain price.

But, as a general rule (and with some notable exceptions), once the product is sold, the purchaser (be it a distributor, a retailer or a consumer) can do with it what s/he pleases. This means that a manufacturer can sell at his usual discount to a distributor and the distributor can sell at the price that will make him a profit.

For example: The manufacturer sells product X to the distributor for $5 and the manufacturer's suggested retail price for product X is $10. The distributor can then, under the First Sale Doctrine, sell product X for $10 or $12 or, to perhaps undercut his competition, he can sell product X for $6. The distributor/retailer can even decide to take a loss on the sale and sell product X for $3, to draw in consumers. This is assuming there is no contract with the manufacturer that limits the price.

Then, when a consumer comes along and purchases product X at the bargain price of $3, this consumer can then resell product X (on eBay or at a garage sale) for $5 or $10 or $20.

Again generally speaking, the price that a retailer/distributor will sell product X for will largely be determined by the manufacturer's suggested retail price and by the discount from the manufacturer offered the retailer/distributor. Large retailers/distributors may get a larger discount and can, therefore, sell at a lower price.

If all was legal and aboveboard, the Bill's employer has already legally purchased the Gillette products (at a discount) and, under the First Sale Doctrine, the distributor is allowed to resell these products at the price set by the distributor (not by Gillette), absent any contract between the distributor and Gillette which could limit the sales and sales prices.

Legal problems can come from breach of contract, advertising, product packaging, IP violations, counterfeits, stolen items ... there are other possibilities.

I suspect here that Gillette is seeing a violation where none exists - but I could be WAY off. Bill says that a personal review by an attorney in New Jersey is set for Tuesday. We might know more then.