Hacker News Reader

> presumably there is no warranty from the person selling it which is in violation of EU warranty laws on products and Nikon doesn't want to get in trouble with the EU either

As the lens is so old it is no longer manufactured, presumably it is outside of any mandated warranty window. But supposing it wasn't - can companies be held liable if someone without their knowledge or consent imports and item into a jurisdiction where that item may not comply with all regulations? This is settled law? And the risk of that is higher than the risk of being sued for tortious interference with the second-hand sellers perfectly legitimate business/transaction?

This kind of argument is common in such threads - that unless companies trample over consumer rights in ways that just happen to drive company profits, they will be held liable for the actions of those consumers. What's not common is citing any legal precedent where this has happened.

Even though it is no longer sold, a used item purchased in the EU must have a warranty offered by the seller.

https://www.evz.de/en/shopping-internet/guarantees-and-warra...

> The legal warranty is mandatory and applies EU-wide for two years beginning from the date consumers receive the product. In the case of used goods, the period can be shortened (1 year). In addition, a commercial guarantee is often agreed between the contracting parties.

And so, the person goes to a camera repair (note that parts will be difficult to get) for a warranty repair within the year. They sue Nikon or Ebay about the warranty and then that goes back to the original seller.

> ... for international buyers through eBay international shipping one of the benefits of eBay international shipping is that we may resolve Vero import issues on your behalf the Vero program is designed to protect you and protect rights owners intellectual property ...

Ebay is saying that they won't be able to protect you (the seller) from this or resolve the import issues if they occur.

Is this settled law? Likely.

---

That's the warranty part... the other part is that items with a trademark may be restricted by the mark holder. This is often done when there's a licensed importer for those goods. (I've also bought and sold board games to and from Europe - some of them are "nope, can't do that" others are perfectly fine - depends on the publisher and if they have a licensed seller of the game)

Note also the legal standing that Nikon has within the EJC: https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delive...

> The ECJ has delivered a landmark ruling which effectively allows trade mark owners to block the sale of goods bearing their trademarks within the EU, where the goods have been obtained on the so-called 'grey market' from suppliers outside the EU. The ruling means that the holder of a trade mark in the UK, or other EU country, can prevent the sale of parallel-imported goods from outside the EU even though such goods have been legitimately sold abroad in the first place.

If Nikon wants to block grey market sales in Europe they are completely within their rights to do so within Europe. Ebay knows that Nikon will do this and someone is going to be on the hook for it (this has been around for two decades).

Is this settled law? Absolutely. That was settled in '98 and every page about grey market for EU points out that the mark holder may ban it.

Recently: Court of Justice allows destroying genuine grey-market goods when rights aren’t exhausted - https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-ju...

This is impossibly insane. I sell lots of old camera gear from defunct companies. There is no way to repair it. Or items sold for parts - do they need a warranty?

I've never seen any EU sellers state that their used goods have a minimum 1 year warranty. Further down, it seems this needs to be explicitly stated: "The legal warranty period for new goods in Germany is 2 years. For second-hand goods, it is 1 year if the buyer and seller expressly agree on this at the time of purchase."

It also isn't true. Private sales are exempt from warranty in most EU countries. For instance in Germany you'll see lots of professional car sellers sell vehicles 'privately' to avoid having to give a 1 year warranty.

They try. It doesn't get them out of the warranty so, and opens them up to charges of tax avoidance.

I'm not convinced by your 1st citation. How does a private sale create a new obligation for Nikon, who was not involved in the transaction? And suppose the sale was intra-EU - am I to believe it is simply illegal to sell used goods in the EU if one is unable to provide warranty for them? Since every sale creates a new 1-year warranty obligation.

Or conversely, that each subsequent sale creates a new 1-year warranty obligation for the manufacturer, that was not involved with the sale, regardless of how old the item is?

And why would it be any of the manufacturer's business whether 2nd-hand sellers don't provide warranty? Since when are they in the business of privately enforcing consumer protections? Or legally compelled to do so.

As for the trademark exhaustion, presumably it refers to my claim that the transaction is "perfectly legitimate", even over the trademark-holder's objection. I stand by "legitimate", but concede that it may not be "legal". However, it is hard for me to express how vile and disgusting such a law is, effectively allowing trade between countries only for corporations, and using trademarks to isolate consumers. As another comment stated, they want to take advantage of price differences for manufacturing, but then prevent consumers from using those differences when buying. Legal, but not remotely legitimate, and a clear sign of the capture of the legislature by corporate interests.

And none of what you cited shows any kind of liability for a company arising from not policing their consumers.

The risk Nikon is facing, and product liability goes far beyond warranties and cover far larger periods, is that theoretically the importer of records takes all product liability risks. Now that lens is a private import from the US, and it is a genuine Nikon product. So, in a sense, that particular lense might cause a liability against Nikon EU, who has no insurance for that case. So yes, there is a risk.

Now, in that case, Nikon EU was not at all involved. It was Nikon US, and we do not know why. Because Nikon is allowing export of used gear from Japan to the US and EU all the time.

So, my theory, is that said auction was caught by some algorithm Nikon US (most likely some service provider) was using and flagged to eBay US. As a result, eBay prevented something very specific, the use of eBays program for international shipping. Note, eBay did not block the auction for US customers, nor did they mention, if I read the screenshot correctly, the export by the seller himself. eBay US just said we don't do that for you in that case.

This is far from screwing consumers or impeding property or repair rights. Heck, we don't even know why the auction was flagged!

Or you can buy a camera from a company that doesn't play these stupid games, like Phase One. The warranty is tied to the back, not the sale. They take care of import/export for you, when required. Nikon USA and Nikon Japan sell the same product and either could repair it, if they cared enough to.

Nikons repair service networlk is actually top notch. And they repair imported gear just fine, even when you are simply on vacation, part availability notwithstanding.

The video is nowhere close to be a right-to-repair topic, but rather a question what people can sell on eBay and to whom. And whether or not any of this affects your ownership.

One trivia about imports: As the actual manufacturer might be put of reach to enforce warranty claims, e.g. because it is a non-EU based company without a legal entity in the EU, the importer of record is liable for the one or two year warranty for used and new goods respectively. Or for any other product liability.

That why Incoterms, import declarations and customs papers matter much.

As concrete example, if private person A buys something from commercial seller B in a third country and person does the import into his home country, seller B is not liable for any warranty or product claims in that country. Seller B is liable for those in his own home country.

And I guess that might be the root cause for, in our example, Nikon (Canon seems to be the same so, judging from comments) is so picky about repairs and warranties on grey imports. US product liabilities and laws are quite special and severe, and I would understand if companies want to avoid any unnecessary risk here.

Because those topics are no problem in the EU, I never heard of a case where repairs have been rejected based on country of origin. Warranties might be different so, for reasons see above.

Edit: What Nikon says is actually very reasonable, and a lot of companies do the same regardong grey imports: we repair them for price X, but don't offer warranties since our local entities are not liable for it. That also means, the camera you bought while in Japan should be covered by Japanese warranties. Everything beyond that is basically good will.

Are sellers of used products (second hand, etc) to the EU required to provide a warranty? If so, is it the same warranty as if the item was new?

As I understand it, yes - they are required to provide the warranty and no, it isn't the same warranty as the item new.

https://www.evz.de/en/shopping-internet/guarantees-and-warra...

> The legal warranty is mandatory and applies EU-wide for two years beginning from the date consumers receive the product. In the case of used goods, the period can be shortened (1 year). In addition, a commercial guarantee is often agreed between the contracting parties.

I belive there's exemptions for private citizens (as opposed to businesses)

It's ridiculous that a global corporation doesn’t provide global service.