Counterfeit Forever Stamps

It should be remembered that postage here is still much cheaper than most of the world. And still significantly cheaper than 1847. Despite the problems enumerated above, which need to be addressed. However I suspect that it will take a long time for that to happen. Human nature has not changed in the last million years and this is just another example of it.

"What ebay does is done as a favor to the buyers."

???
You mean as a favor to shareholders.

There is plenty of money to go around, for the sellers and the shareholders.

FOREVER and USPS are registered trademarks of the USPS. Legal claims concerning counterfeit goods usually are founded on trademark and unfair competition rights, rather than copyright. While the designs of post-1971 US stamps also all are subject to copyright protection by the USPS and it has obtained copyright registrations for some of them, copyright is not usually the main basis of counterfeiting claims. Therefore, the DMCA safe harbor is unimportant, because it doesn't protect platforms from trademark infringement liability.

However, in the US, the Tiffany decision does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffa...._eBay_Inc., which accurately recounts the 2004-2010 litigation of Tiffany against ebay concerning counterfeit jewelry. All the arguments raised in this thread were addressed in the case or commentary on it. Thus, in the US, ebay has no legal obligation to act. Furthermore, in the recent Cox Communications case, which involved similar accusations that an internet service provider was liable for repeat and persistent transmission of infringing copyrighted material, the Supreme Court of the United States made proving platforms' secondary liability substantially harder. Now, plaintiffs must prove the provider intended for its service to be used for infringement, either by actively inducing it or by tailoring its service specifically to infringing uses. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) (Docket No. 24-171) (March 25, 2026).

Notably, ebay lost similar cases in the French courts and with EU regulators in the mid-2000s. Perhaps in response, ebay created the Verified Rights of Owners or VeRO program. Brand owners can submit registration applications asking ebay to make a one-time verification that the owner holds valid, legally enforceable trademark rights in the country where the owner wants to make a takedown demand. When that's done, ebay promises faster review and takedown of listings that the VeRO owner identifies as infringing.

My experience in representing parties with VeRO complaints has been mixed. It is incredibly frustrating when everyone knows that a listing is unauthorized, infringing, and/or counterfeit, but ebay declines a takedown on the grounds that the listing title uses a trademark merely to name the goods. ebay absolutely loves the "nominative fair use" defense, which was core to the Tiffany decision. My view of VeRO is that it's window-dressing--a weak, limited step intended to convince regulators that ebay is doing something about the problem when, in practice, it really doesn't.

Nonetheless, the USPS could, if it wanted, set up VeRO for FOREVER and USPS and probably remove many of these listings. It doesn't do that, so I can only presume that USPS judges the losses from these listings to be less than their indirect costs of hiring someone (or probably multiple people) in new full-time positions to pursue VeRO claims. Maybe independent contractors could be used with some form of compensation tied to results. Or, USPS views pursuing new revenue as more important than chasing these losses. While stamp collectors love to trumpet the seriousness of the issue, to USPS, it's likely noise.

One can argue that it would be more ethical for ebay to police listings itself, and I expect it makes a greater effort in the EU, but in the US, that seems like shouting at clouds, given Tiffany. ebay's primary duty is to shareholders and not brand owners, so if the courts have green-lighted it to pursue profits over brand enforcement, of course it's going to do the former.

In this case ebay isn't just turning a blind eye, they are hiding the illegal activity from other potential buyers by removing feedback that calls out the counterfeits.

As for the DCMA Safe Harbor, no doubt ebay & Amazon lobbyists had a hand writing the act.

Yes, and they may well have liability under various state deceptive trade practices acts, although if every buyer who discovers a problem receives a refund, and non-discovering buyers are satisfied with their purchases at the discounted prices, I'm not sure how you would prove harm. The 'bay would defend by saying that the non-discovering buyer, having received such a low price, could not reasonably have thought the goods were genuine, and could have requested a refund. It would take a courageous court to say that concealment of material facts concerning the goods is inherently harmful and proof of actual harm or loss isn't required.

The current SCOTUS is certainly not going to say that, and any case involving that would certainly wind up there eventually.

I'm sure that ebay put money in the right pockets to ensure that they would win what they wanted; that method has always worked.