• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

agamoto

Member
  • Posts

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

960 profile views
  1. Who is telling you to go to court yourself against the guy? The dude victimized possibly hundreds of primary victims and who knows how many other secondary victims who may have purchased his bad books from those victims. The onus is on you as the victim here to file reports with local and federal authorities, the purpose of which isn't to prove or disprove anything or to initiate any lawsuit or claim in court, but to have the case kicked up to where it belongs, in the domain of the FBI/FTC where it will be investigated as a criminal matter, and that investigation would certainly include CGC's cooperation in revealing all of that information that you don't have to investigators, whether CGC wants to or not. You work for the NYPD, you're the victim of interstate wire fraud and you didn't hear any alarm bells go off in your head when CGC casually forgot to mention you should report the crime against you? Everything you mention here is PRECISELY why the FTC should be investigating. Not just all the incidences of fraud itself, but also CGC's unwitting role in allowing the fraud to occur in the first place as well as their poor response to it.
  2. I gave up pleading others to hold onto their books and contact law enforcement long ago. There are no power in the words of some forum rando, I guess. The feds don’t need to just take over the fraud investigation, (if it hasn’t become totally muddied), they need to also examine CGC’s role in influencing how victims responded to the fraud. I am very curious if anyone victimized who emailed CGC on the matter ever received any guidance to contact local, state or federal authorities to report the fraud against them. Five will get you ten they received no such recommendation.
  3. https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/ Explain the fraud against you, CGC's response to it, and what's happened with your property since submitting your books back to them. If enough victims complain, they will act.
  4. Indeed, the FBI to investigate swappped cases and bad employees and the FTC to look into how this multi-million dollar company's practices are manipulated within or without, putting their customers in potential peril.
  5. IANAL, but CGC is asking for emergency injunctive relief, and the defendent's counsel here is arguing that in such a situation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove buyers have been or will be misled before that's granted. He's arguing that CGC has only presented the three books that he tried to get back which CGC held on to. I suppose it would have been wiser to show examples of the books that have already passed through unsuspecting buyer's hands on the market, that would make the claims of confusion quite evident. Does anyone know if the judge granted what CGC was asking for here or not?
  6. The funny thing about your example is that something exactly like that could actually happen. I've seen plenty of golden-age books with perfectly split spines that are practically flawless. So let's say I took my 9.0 Action Comics #1, and popped it out of its case. I then did the same to my 1.5 and then slipped the Action 1.5 and inner well into the 9.0 case (or just put the 9.0 label in the 1.5 case). If CGC actually did what they say they do in the reholdering/relabeling process, my 1.5 Action Comics once removed from its original inner sleeve, would never have been put back into a 9.0 case. Except, based on what we've seen play out possibly 369 to 2000 times, the people responsible for double checking my 1.5 Action was really a 9.0 failed to perform and I probably would have received a 9.0 Action comics #1 in the mail with a completely split spine held together with glue.
  7. Except the lower grade comics that were substituted into the higher grade cases were, in fact, graded by CGC. That's one of my beefs with the way the complaint was written as they clearly are sidestepping the very important detail about the donor books... They weren't simply pulled off the $1 bin rack from some comic store, they were CGC authenticated genuine books still encased in their inner-sleeve. Also, their own description of the reholdering process indicates they remove the comic sent in from the case and the inner sleeve and the book is assessed prior to being re-encapsulated again.
  8. @comicwiz beat me to it, but I agree with him, that's not what happened here. Since you used Bard, I thought it would be fun to feed this scenario to ChatGPT4 and see what it craps out: *** Under the Lanham Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d), "counterfeit" is defined in the context of civil remedies for trademark infringement, particularly focusing on counterfeit marks. While the Act itself is extensive and covers a broad range of trademark law aspects, the specific definition of a "counterfeit" mark relates to a mark that is unauthorized and identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark. The key aspect of a counterfeit mark under the Lanham Act is its use in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services, which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. Definition Overview: Unauthorized: The production or use of the mark is without the permission of the trademark holder. Identical or Substantially Indistinguishable: The counterfeit mark must be so similar to the genuine registered trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers about the source of the products or services. Registered Mark: The genuine mark must be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Likelihood of Confusion: The use of the counterfeit mark is such that it would likely cause confusion or mistake, or deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods or services by the trademark holder. This definition targets the replication of trademarks for use on unauthorized goods or services, intended to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing legitimate products endorsed or produced by the trademark holder. Application to the Scenario: Given this definition, arguing that a lower-grade book submitted for grading is a "counterfeit" under the Lanham Act would require demonstrating that: The submission involved the use of a mark that is identical or substantially indistinguishable from the grading company's registered trademarks. The mark was used without authorization in a manner likely to cause confusion or deceive about the authenticity or quality of the book as certified by the grading company. However, if the grading company itself applied the mark based on its reassessment process, the situation doesn't straightforwardly fit the concept of "counterfeiting" as defined, since the issue stems more from the exploitation of the company's certification process rather than the unauthorized or deceptive use of a counterfeit mark. In legal strategy, focusing on the deceptive practice or potential for consumer confusion resulting from the misrepresentation of the item's condition might be more applicable under claims of false designation of origin or false advertising, rather than strictly under the definition of counterfeiting. The grading authority, by promising authentication and certification of items (such as comic books, collectibles, etc.), assumes several responsibilities under both the legal framework of trademark law and general principles of consumer protection. Their role and the assurances they provide create expectations among consumers and stakeholders about the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of their grading and authentication services. Here's how their responsibilities play out, especially in light of the scenario where their process has been exploited: Legal and Ethical Responsibilities Accuracy of Grading and Authentication: The grading authority is responsible for ensuring that the grading and authentication processes are conducted accurately and reliably. This includes employing experts, using appropriate technologies, and applying consistent standards to evaluate the items submitted for grading. Misrepresentation and Deception: The authority must avoid any actions or practices that could mislead consumers about the quality, condition, or authenticity of the items they certify. This involves clear communication about what their certification represents and any limitations of their assessment process. Consumer Confidence and Trust: By offering a certification service, the authority implicitly promises to uphold a level of trust with consumers. They are responsible for maintaining this trust by ensuring their certification accurately reflects the item's authenticity and quality. Response to Exploitation or Fraud: If the grading authority's process is exploited or circumvented (as in the scenario of items being swapped and misrepresented), they have a responsibility to address the issue promptly. This could involve investigating the breach, improving security or assessment measures, and taking corrective actions to rectify any misissued certifications. Transparency: The authority should be transparent about their grading process, including any changes or updates to their criteria. This transparency helps consumers make informed decisions and maintains the credibility of the authority's certifications. Legal Compliance: The grading authority must comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection, trademark law, and fraud. This compliance is crucial to avoid legal liabilities and maintain their operational legitimacy. Countermeasures and Improvements In response to exploitation or to prevent future incidents, the grading authority might consider implementing several measures: Enhancing Verification Processes: Improving the thoroughness and accuracy of the re-authentication process to detect tampering or misrepresentation. Technology Upgrades: Using advanced technologies for tamper-evident seals, digital tracking, or other means to ensure the integrity of the item and its certification. Education and Awareness: Informing customers about how to verify the authenticity of certifications and the risks of counterfeit items. Legal Action: Pursuing legal remedies against individuals or entities that fraudulently exploit the certification process. Partnerships: Collaborating with law enforcement, other grading authorities, and industry groups to address broader issues of fraud and counterfeiting in the collectibles market. The grading authority's responsibility is not only to their direct customers but also to the wider community of collectors, investors, and enthusiasts who rely on their certifications as a benchmark of authenticity and quality. Addressing any exploitation of their process is crucial for maintaining the value and integrity of their service. *** I can't wait for the day we have robot lawyers duking it out in court! 400 pages in and we're back to this being an AI discussion!
  9. Ok, well is that not CGC's guaranty? Is it not their job in all of this to guaranty that two sets of eyes looked at a book and deemed it to be an authentic book? I still fail to see how claims of counterfeiting or false designation of origin can stand up when CGC themselves are the ones who are supposed to the be verifying and guaranteeing and slapping their new sleeve, label and holder on the book. 1. If Zanello was indeed just swapping books and then selling them directly representing them as the book on the label, w/o "step 4", ie resubmit to CGC, then I'd agree with you. 2. If CGC never said they pull the book out of the case and the inner well and evaluate it before reencapsulation, I'd also agree with you.
  10. By my reckoning of that lawsuit, it seems those employees apparently had free reign throughout the facility to print whatever they wanted, manipulate records, encapsulate with abandon, etc. So anything goes!