Warning, Strange Bidding On Some Ducati Parts Auctions On Ebay

So if I did a t shirt with an image of a Ducati (my own artwork) could they be legally sold with no issues if I don't use the logo? Could the word Ducati be used in another font they don't use do you think or is it best to leave it off?

 

Well, let's be realistic here. If you silk-screen half a dozen T-shirts and flog them to your mates, you can put "Ducati" on them in any style you want and VAG are not going to bother taking legal action against you. But if you set up a commercial enterprise advertising & selling loads of stuff with their TM on it at a profit, and without their permission, you can be sure they will sue the shirt off your back.

 

So what if it is an art image of a Ducati with no Ducati logo on the shirt - can they stop you selling an image of one of their products if it is in reality an image of a bike you may own and it is your own art? :smile:

 

You had to do it...didn't you?
Pull out the pin and lob the grenade!

 

Thanks - that says you can so long as you don't use the logo if you read it to the end. Did you get anywhere with the Ducati Forum logo for a shirt? Regarding permissions I mean.

 

Wow this is an odd thread.

Not the part that Dirty post, not the part shell bidding as well.

What strikes me as odd is that some people accept the "wrong". What ever the "wrong" is as long as it suits them. The only reason "wrong" is still being practiced is cause people practicing it get away with it.
If we stop buying from sellers that act unfairly and/or illegally they will either fold or learn to act fairly.
There is not excuse for agreeing with "wrong doing" cause it suits your needs.

When I go in to an auction yes I have a maximum in mind but if I wanted to burn that maximum ASAP I would just look for a buy it now. When one enters an auction his intent is to buy an item at lower price then market going price with a possibility of paying normal market price or in some cases more due to heat of the moment.
Changing outcome artificially to make sure possibility of buying an item below market price does not exist is wrong and for seller to influence an auction in any way is illegal.
We seen plenty of examples of that. If you do not want to look at ebay look at stock market. There is strict control there to make sure "sellers" do not manipulate information/assets to gain higher price then item is meant to sell for at that given moment.
If share is worth £10 at start that is it's value if it goes up due to big sales great (if those sales are induced by owner of the shares that is illegal). Same goes for ebay a bid is a current value of the item if someone bids more that value increases.
If seller artificially increases the bid (ie the sale value) it becomes illegal just like in stock market.

 

As it happens the EU is currently trying to move towards a more consistent framework, and published this last week:

EU copyright reform must balance rightholders’ and users’ interests, say MEPs

 

Lucasz, you are using the term "wrong" as though it had a fixed, definite, and universally-accepted meaning. Actually not - it's up for debate.

Ascertaining whether something is or is not illegal is complicated enough, but at least there is a mechanism for reaching a definite answer. Whether something is "wrong" or "unfair" is a far more complex philosophical question. In the context of a commercial market, sellers try to bump prices up and buyers try to screw prices down. Whichever of them succeeds best, the other one complains this outcome is "unfair". To the neutral observer, it may look like six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

 

Eh? Busier than Rob! I am however looking at sourcing some high quality Italian T Shirts as my mate Hana has many contacts in the trade in Italy :Hilarious:

 

High quality and Italian not two words that I would necessarily put together. Expensive and Italian yes

 

It's called marketing :Hilarious:

 

Pete there is a reason why I put wrong in " ". To give it a very loose definition. Fact you still pick on it shows no willingness to grasp the subject.

Fine The seller has signed a contract with ebay by agreeing to their User Agreement.
The bold part is first sentence that explains the prohibited action of shill bidding: Shill bidding is when sellers—or someone they know—place a bid on their item to drive the price up.
They do not specify in what way price was raised they just say it is against their "User Agreement" for seller to raise the price so item sells as higher price then it was going to without the shill bid.
In that user agreement it is prohibited to do shill bidding of any kind. Dirty case is basically the 2nd out of 4 examples ebay gives as prohibited action.

Example 2 of 4 they give:
"John is selling his extra MP3 player on eBay. During the auction his girlfriend, Jane, bids on the MP3 player even though she doesn't intend to buy it. Another person, Dan, whose bid is higher than Jane’s ends up winning the auction, but he paid a higher price than he should have since Jane placed the phony bid"

Notice the bold part and do not go telling me it is not the same as they do not talk about bid retraction, or that if ebay does not see it as shill bidding it is not shill bidding. They only give 4 examples to illustrate the situation to more retarded amongst us, it is impossible and stupid do describe any possible situation. It is not to be a manual on how to cheat on auctions.
Me killing Dirty with intent is still murder, no matter if I got caught or not.

 

your flogging a dead horse Lucaz, see post 15.

 

Dirty, I'd be just as upset as you if I thought someone was trying to scam me. And I bid like yourself, put my max straight away. But I don't check anything other than if I won. Who's bid what and when doesn't matter to me so long as I only pay what I'm happy too.
I've never bought from Forza before, no reason, but I doubt I ever will now though, all sounds too suspicious to me.

 

I dont understand how anyone can think this is right.Its not that the winning bid was the max,but the way it got there.I wouldnt of paid either..........Had I noticed.