The Recycler Issue 317

WORLD FOCUS
You can contact The Recycler via Twitter at @RecyclerMedia
GLOBAL Epson, CR, Third-Party Cartridges
Epson wages online war while losing CR recommendation
The OEM has been making headlines of late, both for its campaign against small businesses selling third-party cartridges
via online retail platforms, as well as for the loss of its CR recommendation for its printers.
The OEM has been waging a campaign
against small UK companies, with a
series of objections and takedowns on
e-commerce platforms such as eBay and
Amazon, leaving beleaguered businesses
little in the way of self-defence.
Epson enjoys Verified Rights-Owner
status on eBay UK (VeRO), and has thus
been able to use this to remove any thirdparty
cartridge listings that it feels may
infringe its patents. It’s a similar story with
Amazon UK, where the OEM uses the
platform’s reporting notice system, simply
informing the websites of any offending
listing, providing a patent number and
alleging infringement of that patent. As the
Open Rights Group writes, “listings are
always removed, and affected sellers cannot
prevent, challenge, or appeal removal.”
The ORG goes on to call this system
“one-sided” and “fundamentally unfair,”
asserting that should Epson have a genuine
belief that patent infringement has been
committed, it should be willing to challenge
the accused in court, rather than employing
such a “blunt tool,” which it “can brazenly
use to circumvent fair judicial process.”
The ORG further claims that Epson’s
primary focus for enforcing its IP rights
should be the manufacturers and importers
of compatible cartridges, not the resellers,
who are referred to as “the least important
part of the chain.” They are targeted, it is
suggested, as they have “the disadvantage of
being visible,” becoming the easiest target
for the takedown policies of websites like
eBay and Amazon.
The damaging aspect of this is being
most keenly felt by small businesses in the
UK, who are forced to either lay off
employees or shut down entirely, as a result
of such “ruthless patent-trolling.” Actions
NORTH AMERICA USITC, Seizure Order, IP
USITC issues new seizure and forfeiture orders
The USITC has issued two new seizure and forfeiture orders related to investigation No. 337-TA-946.
Filed on 6 February 2019, both seizure and
forfeiture orders concern “certain ink
cartridges and components” imported into
the United States by a firm called Swift Ink
LC of 44100 Deep Hollow Ct., Northville,
Michigan 48168.
The orders were issued after the U.S.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
informed the Commission that Swift Ink
like those of Epson are “damaging UK
entrepreneurship, competition, and
independent business activity,” the ORG
claims.
Sellers affected by actions like Epson’s
have no opportunity to respond, counternotice
or object. With no ability to assert
their legal right to advertise the compatible
cartridges, they have no recourse against
the removal of their listings – and without
the financial power to fight such a battle in
court, it leaves many smaller businesses
virtually defenceless.
It’s why the ORG is calling for a UK
legislative mechanism to be put in place,
allowing traders to assert their rights to
continue trading.
“If Epson doesn’t then dare take sellers to
court, for fear their patent might be
overruled – well, that’s their choice,” the
ORG concludes.
Meanwhile, the OEM’s models have lost
the recommendation of Consumer Reports
(CR) over several reliability issues, which
surfaced in a recent survey.
The survey of CR members covered
around 100,000 printers, and also
unearthed certain problems with some
models from fellow OEM HP Inc. As a
result, fourteen printers are losing the
‘Recommended’ designation in the CR
rankings, including Epson regular and
all-in-one inkjets, HP regular inkjets,
had attempted to import the cartridges –
which are covered by a general exclusion
order - into the country.
Customs also informed the Commission
that it had denied entry to the products and
that, “upon such denial of entry, Customs
provided the owner, importer, or consignee
of the articles (or the agent of such person)
with written notice of the aforesaid
and Samsung regular and all-in-one
colour laser printers.
Any printer receiving a ranking of Poor or
Fair for predicted reliability is ineligible for
a CR recommendation. CR has explained
that with the latest criteria and survey
results, some printers have moved up the
rankings, but notably, several have gone in
the opposite direction.
Maria Rerecich, Consumer Reports’
Senior Director for Product Testing, said:
“There’s an opportunity for manufacturers
to step up here. Some of the printers that
are losing recommendations score highly in
our performance testing. If manufacturers
can improve the reliability of these
products, their models should do quite well
in our ratings.” The survey took in 113,959
different printers, with many expressing
frustration with their major branded
machines. Epson, however, was robust in its
defence of its printers.
“Epson does not believe that Consumer
Reports’ findings accurately capture the
performance and reliability of Epson
printers and genuine ink,” said company
spokesperson Merritt Woodward. “In fact,
we believe that our sales growth reflects
user satisfaction. Epson has always been
committed to responding to and meeting
the needs of consumers.”
The most common complaint was the
cost and hassle of replacing ink cartridges,
with 28 percent requiring a replacement
“too often.” Other problems highlighted
were poor print quality, dropping network
connections, or stopping working with
third-party ink or toner.
Paper jams and misfeeds was another
reported affliction, with around 10 percent
of printers susceptible to this, according to
the survey.
exclusion order and the fact that seizure
and forfeiture would result from any
further attempt to import the articles into
the United States.”As a result of the
information passed on by Customs, the
USITC issued the two seizure and
forfeiture orders, deeming them
“appropriate pursuant to section 337(i) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337(i))”.
18 THE RECYCLER • ISSUE 317 • APRIL 2019