If you haven’t read about it already, a French court has ruled against eBay in a suit brought by Hermes, with Hermes arguing that eBay should be held liable for complicity in the sales offerings posted on eBay for fake Hermes goods. eBay had argued, and has consistently argued, that it does not condone the sales of knock-offs, and, once these are brought to its attention, closes the online platform for knock-off sellers. Very large of eBay, wouldn’t you say? Allowing the barn door to be closed after the cows are out- and already on their way to the abattoir. The French court agreed with Hermes, and cases brought by Vuitton and Dior Couture are pending- with damage claims totaling in excess of €50 million. A drop in the bucket for eBay, surely, but doubtless enough to encourage an international class of buyers who’ve made good faith purchases of items that turned out not to be as represented to bring suit. Read ‘class action.’
In reviewing the sites of other bloggers who’ve devoted some column inches to eBay’s present and looming debacle, not very many people feel sorry for the luxury brand manufacturers. Opinion seems to be that, although the brands are being knocked off, the luxury brands themselves are ripping people off. How is this conclusion derived? Why- just look at the high price for any Vuitton item. What further evidence is needed? Prima facie rip-off, yes?
High priced? Yes. Rip-off? No. Expensive to design, market and produce? Absolutely yes, and this is why the manufacturers are suing eBay. Chappell & McCullar knows first hand what it costs to develop a luxury brand, witness our new line of furniture inspired by the 18th century pieces in the Rothschild Collection at Waddesdon Manor. These are de novo- brand new, designed from the ground up, with no template to start with. Everything was designed and built in this country, with fair wages paid to those involved in the design and construction of the prototypes. Then, of course, all the materials used in construction are certified as from sustainable sources, the veneers are hand selected, and the construction itself is all done by hand. Suffice to say, this makes the finished product very nearly a work of art, an instant heirloom.
With Vuitton as our running example, a knock-off may very well be good quality- the piece goods from which it is made highly likely to have been made in the same manner and with the same basic materials as the original. However, it isn’t only the development costs that the knock-off manufacturer saves money on- it is the labor used, and what the labor is paid, that constitutes far and away the largest element in the price differential between knock-off and genuine article. Actually, the term ‘rip-off’ is used most appropriately in this context, because the buyers of knock-off merchandise are as complicit in the rip-off perpetrated against underpaid, underage labor employed in the knock-off production process. You’ve heard of labor exploitation often enough, and tragically, with its frequency, it has long since become an ignored cliché. This doesn’t make exploitative practices any less reprehensible. Perhaps I can put it another way that might have a bit more resonance: would the woman who fancies a knockoff Vuitton bag feel okay about sending her 8 year old daughter to an Asian sweatshop to make one for her?