Authentic makers sueing Cloners?

[Technonut]

That statement couldn't be more inaccurate had you purposely made it!

The bottom line is you call it theft because of our freedom of speech rights but in reality it is completely legal. People make that statement with absolutely no LEGAL support for the claim.

It's ok for you, in your world to feel that copying is theft. The reality is that without legal protection against copying a piece of equipment or the lack of a patent, trademark or a copyright China can produce copies.

It's important to live in the world of reality.

I have to be done with this thread, concepts of reality seem to be strained in this thread.

Yet, the very forum you (and others) choose to be a member of is totally against counterfeit 1:1 vaping devices, and considers the practice theft.. Who's reality is that? I suppose that sort-of-kind-of makes all members here "anti-1:1 counterfeit" by association?

 

[skoony]

Apparently. Talking to the anti-clone extremists amounts to talking to a brick wall.



View attachment 376054

you call it a clone.
i say its a fake,replica,or knock-off.
all these words have the same meaning.

 

[bluecat]

Both trademark and copyright exist effectively automatically.

Yes they do. If two companies do the same thing then it goes to court and each will have to prove who was first. With registration, that part is easier to figure out.

With Hana I believe the companies removed the name when asked (sued), if I am not mistaken.

 

[bluecat]

Yet, the very forum you (and others) choose to be a member of is totally against counterfeit 1:1 vaping devices, and considers the practice theft.. Who's reality is that? I suppose that sort-of-kind-of makes all members here "anti-1:1 counterfeit" by association?

I am not sure if they are against them, maybe personally the staff but the not the site as whole. They won't allow them to be sold in the classies. That is different than being against them. I commend them for it. It reduces the likehood of a clone being sold as a original (same price). The legal reprecussions would be bad for business to.

 

[Technonut]

I am not sure if they are against them, maybe personally the staff but the not the site as whole. They won't allow them to be sold in the classies. That is different than being against them. I commend them for it. It reduces the likehood of a clone being sold as a original (same price). The legal reprecussions would be bad for business to.

It's pretty clear....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...does-ecf-not-allow-clones-2.html#post14165770

As stated previously, it is illegal to sell counterfeit merchandise, that would even include a member here selling as well but that isn't really the reason here on ECF, not the main reason anyway. The point is, it is intellectual theft. These people are stealing someone else's ideas and work. It would be just like you investing a large amount of money and time to develop something, you price the item for $50 to recoupe the time an money invested, only to have a counterfeiter come in offering a copy of that item for $10. I would hope this would enrage you!

Our stance on counterfeits is to not promote them in anyway through our private sales section, namely the Classifieds and CO-OPs. Our rule is to discourage and to not promote counterfeit products. A side effect of this rule also helps prevent members from being scammed into buying a counterfeit when posted as authentic.

As to the comment saying we think clones are counterfeits, well that makes no sense at all. If this were true why do we allow clones but prohibit counterfeits? I've tried to explain the difference till I am blue in the face and I just won't do it anymore, mainly because some people just don't seem to grasp the concept. One thing I will say is, just because they say its a clone doesn't mean its not counterfeit.

To summarize, counterfeiting is theft and we will not allow it. You don't have to agree but you do have to abide. Sorry that sounds harsh but it's just the way it is.

 

[Circa Survivor]

Yet, the very forum you (and others) choose to be a member of is totally against counterfeit 1:1 vaping devices, and considers the practice theft.. Who's reality is that? I suppose that sort-of-kind-of makes all members here "anti-1:1 counterfeit" by association?

I call it a 1:1 clone if it's being sold as one. Counterfeit is made and sold in exact imitation of something with the intention to deceive or defraud. I have never purchased any atomizer clone that was marketed as the "real" thing.

 

[Technonut]

I call it a 1:1 clone if it's being sold as one. Counterfeit is made and sold in exact imitation of something with the intention to deceive or defraud. I have never purchased any atomizer clone that was marketed as the "real" thing.

That has nothing to do with this site's stance on the matter... I was briefly a Moderator here not long ago, and have a good idea what that stance is..

 

[Circa Survivor]

That has nothing to do with this site's stance on the matter... I was briefly a Moderator here not long ago, and have a good idea what that stance is..

I know and don't care about the stance of the forums. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about counterfeiting in general.

 

[retird]

The bottom line is you call it theft because of our freedom of speech rights but in reality it is completely legal. People make that statement with absolutely no LEGAL support for the claim.

It's ok for you, in your world to feel that copying is theft. The reality is that without legal protection against copying a piece of equipment or the lack of a patent, trademark or a copyright China can produce copies.
.

The legal support is there thru patents , trademarks, and copyrights . Patents and trademarks have been and are being prostituted (stolen aka theft) by China and are being addressed within the justice system in the USA. The wheels of justice just turn slower than the "clone market can clone". The Hana trademark lawsuit seems to be the only one you are aware of... more research will lead you to patent infringment being addressed....

There are good companies in China producing good e-cig products of their own design and there are "clone" companies that prey on popular US designs to produce the counterfeit/clones. Some of the clones involve infringed patents, trademarks, or copyrights. In my opinion the clones that do not infringe are "free market" where those that do infringe are stolen intellectual property (IP).

Funny, but not really funny is the fact that these clone companies call consumers in the US " sheeple", not "people", because they know whatever poorly made clone they offer the "sheeple" here will buy just on price point. The term "sheeple" means "sheep lead to slaughter"..... The legitimate companies in China don't call us "sheeple" they call us customers. If you don't believe this just talk to US vendors that have gone to China and talked to them....

This thread is mostly opinions and conjecture (I see no issue with this) with little tangible evidence except for those who have taken the time and effort to do a bit of research.... makes for a lively debate .... carry on....

 

[stevegmu]

Clones are biological organisms grown in a lab, like Dolly...

 

[Bronze]

I will say, it's easier to be pro-clone when the price is 1/4 versus the original.

 

[Jman8]

Go back and read the previous 84 pages you will find it. Getting tired of repeating myself in this thread for laziness.

Already have, it's not there. Again, it's been addressed, but not answered. Here is golden opportunity to show me up and link to where you think it has been answered. I'm guessing you, nor anyone from pro-clone side will link to that hypothetical previous post.

 

[Circa Survivor]

Already have, it's not there. Again, it's been addressed, but not answered. Here is golden opportunity to show me up and link to where you think it has been answered. I'm guessing you, nor anyone from pro-clone side will link to that hypothetical previous post.

What are you looking for here? Who cares. Go do something else instead of waiting for the answer you're looking for that you're not going to get.

 

[Jman8]

That statement couldn't be more inaccurate had you purposely made it!

The bottom line is you call it theft because of our freedom of speech rights but in reality it is completely legal. People make that statement with absolutely no LEGAL support for the claim.

It's ok for you, in your world to feel that copying is theft. The reality is that without legal protection against copying a piece of equipment or the lack of a patent, trademark or a copyright China can produce copies.

It's important to live in the world of reality.

I have to be done with this thread, concepts of reality seem to be strained in this thread.

See, this would be example of barely addressing what I am asking for. And also leads to impression that 1:1 copying, including logo, is perfectly okay from pro-clone crowd, yet pro-clone people have tried to say imitating logo is not okay, without explaining why that is.

Non deceptive counterfeiting is still counterfeiting. And it is the reality we live in.

 

[Circa Survivor]

See, this would be example of barely addressing what I am asking for. And also leads to impression that 1:1 copying, including logo, is perfectly okay from pro-clone crowd, yet pro-clone people have tried to say imitating logo is not okay, without explaining why that is.

Non deceptive counterfeiting is still counterfeiting. And it is the reality we live in.

Because we are terrible people and have no morals. Is that the answer you're looking for?

 

[Bronze]

See, this would be example of barely addressing what I am asking for. And also leads to impression that 1:1 copying, including logo, is perfectly okay from pro-clone crowd, yet pro-clone people have tried to say imitating logo is not okay, without explaining why that is.

Non deceptive counterfeiting is still counterfeiting. And it is the reality we live in.

You should call them Clonehadists.

 

[Bronze]

You should call them Clonehadists.

And Originalistas.

 

[Marc411]

Both trademark and copyright exist effectively automatically.

Not true! I would suggest that you do some research or post supporting documentation. Both require registration.

But when all else fails just make stuff up.

I own both so I am not a Originalistas or a Clonehadists so you guys are going to have to come up with one more clever name.

See, this would be example of barely addressing what I am asking for. And also leads to impression that 1:1 copying, including logo, is perfectly okay from pro-clone crowd, yet pro-clone people have tried to say imitating logo is not okay, without explaining why that is.

Non deceptive counterfeiting is still counterfeiting. And it is the reality we live in.

Respect, professional courtesy and so you can't be accused of passing a product off as the authentic. Those are my reasons away.

 

[Jman8]

Because we are terrible people and have no morals. Is that the answer you're looking for?

Nope, the answer I'm looking for is consistency from pro-clone crowd. Just come out and say, there is zero issue with 1:1 copying, including logos, and all/any distinctive marks on a device as long as those marks are not trademark registered, and it is marketed as a clone.

I don't get why that would be hard to say, given the pro-clone perspective. Instead, people draw arbitrary lines and claim that copying the logo is unacceptable. Why, I might ask, or have asked, and then it is crickets chirping.

 

[Marc411]

Nope, the answer I'm looking for is consistency from pro-clone crowd. Just come out and say, there is zero issue with 1:1 copying, including logos, and all/any distinctive marks on a device as long as those marks are not trademark registered, and it is marketed as a clone.

I don't get why that would be hard to say, given the pro-clone perspective. Instead, people draw arbitrary lines and claim that copying the logo is unacceptable. Why, I might ask, or have asked, and then it is crickets chirping.

So now you are telling people that purchase clones what their rationale is and what they should say just so you can feel better about yourself.

They have answered your question, you just don't like the answer and I know because I've answered the question twice in this thread.

Interesting perspective.