THREE of my friends and my boyfriend all bought me the same album for my Christmas present one year: Britney Spears' Greatest Hits.
I was thoroughly hacked off.
It's not that they did any wrong, but being lumbered with an extra three duplicate CDs is just a waste.
So, with tighter return policies and no chance of returning them to the shop, I did the only thing I could –
I put them on eBay. They were my property, after all. And I could do anything I wanted with them. Right?
Wrong. Well, at least in France. According to a French court judgement earlier this week, while I could still pass my unwanted goods on to a friend, family member or even throw it in the bin, it might just be illegal to sell it on eBay. Or indeed any other internet site. And it might even be illegal to give it to a charity shop too.
In a court case involving online auctioneer eBay this week, the court backed Louis Vuitton Moet Henessay's argument that a luxury goods company must have the right to select its own distribution network, or the value of its brands may well be undermined. And that control should extend to average Joe Bloggs like you or me, selling our unwanted presents on the internet.
With LVMH getting away with it, it could open the floodgates against selling other goods – including CDs.
The French luxury goods group, which owns more than 50 brands including Christian Dior, Marc Jacobs, Fendi, Tag Heuer and Louis Vuitton, may have won £31.5 million in damages from eBay for the sales of fake handbags, perfumes and fashions, but according to eBay, the ruling would also extend to second-hand products.
So our bored-of items, designer fashions that are now too small or perfumes you've tired of would be banned. Kind of leaves a bad taste in the mouth of consumers, doesn't it? Especially as, if we part with our own hard-earned cash, then surely we have the right to decide what we do with our own property.
Furthermore, doesn't that harm our choice as consumers, all in the name of protecting what could be deemed as uncompetitive commercial practices?
LVMH insist that this specific ruling is purely eBay spin and that the judgement merely related to the resale of new products sold by bulk wholesalers. If true, you can kind of see their point. Kind of.
Counterfeiting is a serious problem – especially on the internet. As a designer lover on a high street budget I've purchased many an item from eBay, and I have to say the majority of the time my goodies have sadly been fakes. Good fakes – but fakes nonetheless.
While holidaying in Dubai two years ago, my friend and I paid the renowned Kamara shopping centre a visit. Behind many of the shop facades, through an Alice In Wonderland-style tiny door and up a set of stairs lay a treasure trove of "designer" bags. Bags that looked like the real thing but, upon touch and closer inspection, were clearly fakes. One seller tried to force a Chloe Paddington upon me for £150.
While the majority of us can never afford a luxury lifestyle, we can afford luxury experiences and tap into this lifestyle. It's that feel-good factor. Something not everyone else has on the street – unless it's fake, sold to unsuspecting punters.
Earlier this year in France, internet search engine operator Google was fined £200,000 over allegations it had provided links to sites that sold counterfeit versions of Louis Vuitton products. Now there's the eBay judgement.
If it is just about that then good on them. If it's also about the general public being unable to re-sell our own goods, then it's time such luxury brands got a grip.
For surely if LVMH can exercise some control over what we do with their goods, then we can exercise the same control over the money they receive from us.
