Let’s say I want to go into the ketchup business (just for an example) but I don’t have the equipment to make the actual ketchup. So I buy a bunch of Hunts Ketchup, peel off the label, and put my label on and sell it. Legal?
I didn’t think so. But what exact laws cover food stuff?
Fraud. False advertising. And probably a whole bunch of other stuff the Federal Trade Commission will come after you for.
You’ve also violated health codes probably by handling the bottles.
It’s legal if Heinz agrees to it. Or Hunts. Whatever. In other words, you can sign a deal where you distribute their product under a different label. The place I work, for instance, makes various products and sells them under half a dozen labels, including various store brands.
What BobT said. A local restaurant got into trouble for that very same thing selling bottled water.
But it would be cheaper to buy it from their source anyway.
You do know that when you buy Tommy Hilfinger jeans you actually buy Pepe jeans (A UK brand): and when you buy Tommy Hilfinger underwear you buy Jockey underwear.
Licencing of brands to clothing is perfectly legal.
If you don’t have a licence, though, as stated above, there is a room waiting for you at one of our lovely prisons.
I’m not convinced that it’s fraudulent (what false statement are you making?)
Instead, this would qualify as “reverse passing off.” I believe that many American courts have found this practice unlawful under the “Lanham Act,” the general statute that has our copywright and trademark laws, with a little unfair competition law thrown in for good measure.
At the same time, I expect that there is some controversy over whether “reverse passing off” should be considered unlawful. I believe that traditionally, a buyer is generally entitled to re-sell legally acquired products whether or not the original seller objects.
Anyway, if you do web searches for “reverse passing off” or “reverse palming off” you should be able to find stuff.
(standard disclaimer about legal advice)
Cite, please? I actually just purchased several different brands of boxer briefs for my husband to see which ones he liked the best. He noticed a difference between the Jockey’s and the Tommy’s almost immediately. He also noticed a * significant * difference in the price which could have hampered his decision. But IIRC, I also noticed a difference in the quality between the two.
Dave Stewart’s quite correct, as picked up by Naomi Klein in her book No Logo.
Thanks for the link. I can see where it’s discussed about private labeling but does that mean that the same materials are used in the manufacturing of Tommy and Jockey underwear? I know that I can feel the difference between the two. I just checked and the Tommy’s are much softer and thicker and my husband swears that they fit “snugger” than the Jockey’s. I’m off to do some research. I’ll check back later.
An important distinction, Karma, thanks for making it explicit.
Sometimes a product is licensed to another producer along with strict specifications on how the product is to be produced – material, cut, colors, etc in the case of clothing. There will also often be restrictions on marketing the product (Keep my snooty name out of Target, for example).
Other times, just the name (or the name and not much more) is licensed, and the licensee can pretty much do what it wants.
Here’s a link showing that specifications are set by Tommy but the actual manufacturing process is done by Jockey.
I knew I wasn’t crazy… well at least not about this issue. I was beginning to think that my senses were failing me.
You’re fradulently trying to pass off your cheap shit as Hunts. A “statement” does not have to be expressed in words, but can be expressed in actions.
You’ve got it bassakwards. Read the OP again - he’s buying Hunts and passing it off as his own cheap shit. This may or may not be fraudulent, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of economic sense. You’re incurring additional costs by slapping your own label on the ketchup, so it’ll be more expensive. Add in the brand name recognition (i.e., everyone knows Hunts, but no one knows who the hell you are), which means no one will buy your stuff and you’ll quickly go under. Hunts probably couldn’t care less - they’ve already made their money off of you when you first bought their ketchup.
Tommy/Pepe…This is also true of Sears Kenmore home appliances. I have a Kenmore fridge, it needed repairs, the serviceman went to get the parts and they were made by Whirlpool. Turns out that whirlpool licenses their products to Sears under the Kenmore name.
Sears pay’s whirlpool for the products, and is allowed to put their name on it.
Please re-read the OP. What you just described – “passing off your cheap shit as Hunts” – is not what is described in the OP. Rather, the question is about the reverse situation: when you pass off Hunts as your cheap shit, so to speak.
I agree that what you described – so-called “passing off” – is fraudulent. I’m not convinced that “reverse passing off” is fraudulent.
Thanks for helping to clarify the distinction. By the way, I agree that “reverse passing off” is, in general, uneconomical. But from time to time, there are situations where it makes economic sense. In fact, it’s a problem on the internet, where many companies give information away for free.
And here’s an article that discusses this problem in the context of the internet:
Sure. As other posters have noted, many companies actually do rebrand and sell products made by other companies. The first company doesn’t want to build and maintain a factory, so pays the second company to do that. The second company already has the factory and can sell their product to the first company for lower than normal because then they don’t have to deal with marketing, advertising, and customer support.
This is called copyright infringement, and there are already laws against it.
It’s been a while since I studied the subject, but I believe that information per se cannot be copyrighted.
An example:
Suppose that AT&T sets up a national online phone directory. Later, I set up “Lucwarm’s phone directory.com”
My site simply retrieves phone numbers from the AT&T site and supplies them to my users.
Have I infringed anyone’s copyright?
In that case, AT&T can simply block your servers from accessing their information.
I don’t want to hijack OP. I can see this heading off to Great Debates very quickly. Care to post your question there?