agamoto

On 3/20/2024 at 9:57 AM, Mdesimone said:

They never told me to contact any law enforcement. I myself work for NYPD. This is being handled civilly not criminal on cgc end at the moment. Cgc holds the burden of proof that the comics were swapped. I am not a grading expert I cannot state the grade of the comic, I cannot prove who was the person who reholder the book because I have no access to that info. If I went after them in court myself I would get decimated by the defense. In NYC this case would go nowhere since I cannot prove it on my own

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?

On 3/20/2024 at 3:43 PM, DougC said:

Contacting law enforcement isn't really going to do anything at this point; sure if you really want to try and put pressure on the company and see if any agency will bite on a fraud investigation, go for it. None of that will help a victim or assist in getting information/compensation while CGC is in possession of their property.

Depending on the value the book it may be worth the couple hundred to have an associates paralegal draft a notice of request to inquire about exactly what is going on. The main points being Acknowledgement and holding of property (and requesting receipt), how/who determined the fraud in your specific book, definition of compensation (are they going to pay for with holding of property during the litigation, replace the book, replace the value, some middle ground, and how/when is "value" determined), why compensation is currently being withheld from their admitted error and inappropriately tied to the civil litigation and insurance claims. Speaking of which; request certified copies of both actions as of the dates the book was in CGC's possession (this is being petty).

CGC's lack of communication with victims after receiving their books is huge red flag and will likely result in you eventually getting an email with an offer of what they view as FMV "system credit" which it should be monetary compensation for the book, all associated grading and mail fee's incurred, compensation for the detainment of personal property, and additional damages.

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. 

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. 

Hammers? Paint scrapers??

On 2/13/2024 at 8:53 PM, paqart said:

And this is why this needs to go to law enforcement.

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. 

On 2/13/2024 at 5:04 PM, HighGrade said:

What is this garbage??? this is part of the defense? LOL

To prevail on a trademark infringement and counterfeiting claim, CGC must establish that
its marks are protected and that Mr. Zanello’s “use of the allegedly infringing mark would likely
cause confusion as to the origin or sponsorship.” Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc.,
588 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir. 2009). “‘The crucial issue in an action for trademark infringement’ is
whether there is a ‘likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are
likely to be misled’ or ‘confused’ as to a product source.”

 

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?

On 2/7/2024 at 3:45 PM, paqart said:

They may have been graded at one time, but not on the occasion when they received a grade bump. If you buy an Action #1 graded at 1.5, it is CGC-graded. If you break it out of the case, it was CGC-graded. If you slip it into a case with a 9.0 label, CGC did not grade it 9.0. Therefore, in that holder, it is no longer CGC graded. Breaking it out of the original holder is like nullifying a marriage: it is as if it had never happened. Saying that someone whose marriage was annulled is now married to someone else on the basis that the names on the marriage certificates match, when the person involved is not the same, does not make them married.

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.  

On 2/7/2024 at 3:08 PM, comicwiz said:

THIS

On 2/7/2024 at 3:12 PM, paqart said:

They applied the mark without grading the comic. Therefore, it is not a "CGC-graded comic". That makes it counterfeit.

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 1:38 PM, paqart said:

 That is exactly what happened here.

@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!

On 2/7/2024 at 1:15 PM, sledgehammer said:

Where did you get this from?

Did you see somewhere that they said they remove comics from the inner sleeve on every re holder/custom label, or at least their employees are supposed to?

This is all that I saw in the complaint:

"Because reholdering does not involve grading, the grade does not change (except in rare instances not applicable here)."

Check it out...

On 2/7/2024 at 11:54 AM, paqart said:

That is a fair argument and may correctly anticipate Zanello's defense. However, Zanello misrepresented to CGC that the comic in the holder was the same as was originally graded. CGC was sloppy not to check, but Zanello was intending to defraud and made CGC into an unwitting participant, possibly because he was aware of laxity in their reholdering process. That still makes Zanello guilty of counterfeiting, even if he used a third party to do it. Also, regardless of CGC's actions, the result is a counterfeit with a false designation of origin because the comic inside the case is not the comic the grade label belongs to.

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. 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:42 PM, paqart said:

It happens. Insurance companies don't exist to rip people off, no matter how many people think so. Their brand is closely connected to the way they treat claimants. They have no problem destroying scammers when the need arises, but honest claimants are treated differently, even if they have to jump through a few hoops first.
A good friend of mine is a senior manager at one of the largest medical insurance companies in the world. According to him, they sometimes prefer to pay for more expensive treatment than requested because their doctors have determined it is better than whatever is asked for. In the long run, they find that better solutions lead to fewer claims and happier customers.

whoops!

On 2/7/2024 at 12:03 PM, comicwiz said:

Here's one. An error? Perhaps. However, it's a good example of the nuanced aspects of grading.

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!

On 2/7/2024 at 12:35 PM, paqart said:

Not Twilight Zone. They paid me full guide for the comics, which at the time was around $500. I used part of the proceeds to buy a Thun'da #1 for $375 (appx 8.0) from Comics and Comix in Palo Alto. Also, I thought I'd won the case and that's why I got paid. My mom told me no, it was the insurance company that decided to pay me. I should also mention that when the police searched the kid's house for my comics, they found a lot of other suspicious comics he likely stole. They couldn't confiscate them because they weren't on my list, but they were a lot more valuable than the stuff he took from me, all Golden Age early Action, Superman, and Captain America. 

Sometimes, people do the right thing even when they don't have to.

People do the right thing sometimes, but insurance companies? 

Lol. 

On 2/7/2024 at 11:49 AM, paqart said:

I described this in great detail to the judge, who did not believe I could tell the difference between two identically manufactured comics. The thief's family had their insurance agent at the trial. Though I lost because the judge didn't believe I could distinguish between my comics and someone else's, the insurance agent was persuaded and I got paid through the family's homeowner's insurance.

Hold on a second... You're saying that despite losing your case in court, the accused's family insurance company was so moved by your testimony that they paid you for your loss anyway? 

What season and episode of the Twilight Zone was this again? 

On 2/7/2024 at 9:26 AM, paqart said:

Real label, case, and comic, but they don't belong together. It is a false designation of origin because the grade and the comic don't go together. The seller is representing that the 9.0 was assigned to that comic by CGC, but that isn't true. Therefore, false designation of origin.

I'm not so sure about that. Let me play devil's advocate for a second...

We know this much: Zanello, allegedly, purchased two CGC graded books, one of higher grade, one of lower grade. We still have no clear picture if he had been swapping labels or swapping the CGC sealed inner sleeve containing the comic, but the end result was a frankenstein that ended back up on the desk of someone at CGC. CGC then opened the case AND the inner sleeve, performed some level of examination of the book, reinserted the book into a new inner sleeve and then encapsulated the comic with a new label certifiying the book as legit, anew.

Did Zanello violate CGC's terms by doing this? I believe not by their own definition, as their terms only stipulate material changes to the comics themselves as tampering when that didn't happen here. Did Zanello misrepresent what he was sending in to CGC? Clearly, but CGC's main business is in authentication of the collectible. They bear some responsibility here. Seems to me it's on CGC to make sure the book sent in is the book they say it is on the label, even if they don't guaranty the grade.  

The way the complaint is presented, Zanello was stuffing just any ol' lower grade comic stuck into a higher-grade CGC case/label. That's not what happened. Someone needs to explain to me like I'm five how Zanello is guilty of trademark infringement when he played no role whatsoever in the company's process for reauthentication and encapsulation of books submitted to them?

Is he supposed to be guilty simply because he alone is aware that the book inside the case CGC sent back to him isn't the original comic that CGC had graded? How is Zanello supposed to know that CGC did NOT review the condition of his submitted books outside of their case and inner sleeve, like CGC says they do?

On 2/7/2024 at 9:29 AM, paqart said:

Figuring out the scam here is not the same as constructing a tight lawsuit. That's like saying "the actors do all the work" and not crediting the writers, director, cinematographer, etc. That, or the reverse, "the actor didn't do anything, it was all the behind the camera guys who made the movie great."

It's not like saying either of those things. It's like saying CGC has likely paid, or will pay, a substantial sum to Kroll and to Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP for what amounts to a a copy/paste of the Provenance NGC LCC v. Albright suit, plugging in all the info and pictures dredged up by CGC forum detectives. 

The comment I made was in context of Lasko heaping praise on his colleagues for how they demonstrated the differences between the books before and after reholder. You may disagree, but @comicwiz did it better.

On 2/7/2024 at 9:15 AM, paqart said:

I was thinking about the SS comics last night. Is it plausible that the signatures are real but they weren't witnessed? Then someone managed to get SS labels and stuck them in SS cases? Were there prior sales to rule that out?

While it would involve removing and reinserting a book into an inner sleeve, which I don't think has been on anyones radar in all of this, all it would take to effectively duplicate a sloppy ol' sharpie signature on any book is a $550 axidraw and the appropriate color sharpie. I personally don't believe for a second anyone would have the balls to do such a thing on such big books and then send them into CGC. 

On 2/6/2024 at 10:54 AM, comix4fun said:

That's a creature of efficiency and piggybacking. If criminal action is happening, and in motion, civil plaintiffs will normally wait and let the case work its way out. If they are suing civilly for the same set of facts and actions on the defendant's part they may want to wait to see if there's a conviction for 1) a finding by the court that part of the penalty is restitution to the plaintiffs and other injured parties if named and 2) a "beyond a reasonable doubt" finding in a criminal case is harder to obtain than "preponderance" in the civil actions and thus make the potential for an end result in plaintiff's favor (or a settlement in the face of certain defeat for the plaintiffs) a certainty and only amount of damages and penalties the only real question. 

If CGC weren't concerned about immediately stopping the businesses and the books and any ongoing actions of the defendants, and they knew there was a criminal case pending that wouldn't cause them to watch the clock for statutes of limitations, they could save some money and doubt as to outcome letting government authorities do the heavy lifting. 

Also, CGC has zero control over a criminal investigation beyond making the complaint. Law enforcement has control over basically all of the steps taken to investigate, prosecute or decline to prosecute these types of cases. This would be, at its heart, an FBI matter (or perhaps US Postal Inspectors in conjunction with the FBI or DOJ), given that it crosses state lines, uses the postal service, and telecommunications and the internet to effectuate the crimes. 

In reality, given the above, waiting isn't a real option like it would be in a more simple state or county case. 

Finally! A lawyer in our midst!

I've been harping on CGC to bring the FBI into this for hundreds of freakin' pages, which I know they absolutely could do with a phone call if they wanted to.

The problem with those who actually would like to see some *criminal* justice here is that certified collectibles group already has a track record where no criminal investigation takes place, and the whole messy incident winds up locked down in secrecy via settlement agreement.

NGC, CGC's sister company, went through these paces with a fellow named Richard Albright over on the collector coin side of things. Everything CGC has filed thus far in this case mirrors what they did in that one. See: Provenance NGC LLC v. Albright, 1:23-cv-00406

That suit was settled last August. We've yet to see Mr. Albright face any criminal charges for wire fraud. 

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/11938/

My fear is history repeating itself.

While I understand it's still possible charges could drop before any SoL expiry, is it not unusual CGC would be asking victims of this fraud to send their books/evidence in to CGC for their review instead of suggesting those victims reach out to local/state or federal law enforcement agents to at least file a complaint? Wouldn't having all of that evidence fumbling through the multiple hands (heck, even possibly some alleged bad employees who walk out with books!) at CGC not create a problem for any future criminal investigation and prosecution? 

On 2/2/2024 at 9:41 AM, CGC Mike said:

That page is way outdated.  Also, we have several current graders that are not pictured.  I am not sure if it will be updated at some point or not.

Thanks Mike!

On 2/2/2024 at 5:20 AM, sledgehammer said:

He mentioned raw, in 2007.

If it was just graded now, there may have been substantial changes in the condition in 16 years.

If he doesn't have documented evidence from recently of what it looked like before he sent it in, and he can't even tell from looking at it if it's even his,  it's probably not going to help much.

I saw that, but was hoping he could dial it in a little closer and peg it to a sale from the US or UK as worthpoint doesn't track sales on eBay country tld's outside of those two.