agamoto

Who is telling you to go to court yourself against the guy? The dude victimized possibly hundreds of primary victims and who knows how many other secondary victims who may have purchased his bad books from those victims. The onus is on you as the victim here to file reports with local and federal authorities, the purpose of which isn't to prove or disprove anything or to initiate any lawsuit or claim in court, but to have the case kicked up to where it belongs, in the domain of the FBI/FTC where it will be investigated as a criminal matter, and that investigation would certainly include CGC's cooperation in revealing all of that information that you don't have to investigators, whether CGC wants to or not. You work for the NYPD, you're the victim of interstate wire fraud and you didn't hear any alarm bells go off in your head when CGC casually forgot to mention you should report the crime against you? Everything you mention here is PRECISELY why the FTC should be investigating. Not just all the incidences of fraud itself, but also CGC's unwitting role in allowing the fraud to occur in the first place as well as their poor response to it.

I gave up pleading others to hold onto their books and contact law enforcement long ago. There are no power in the words of some forum rando, I guess. The feds don’t need to just take over the fraud investigation, (if it hasn’t become totally muddied), they need to also examine CGC’s role in influencing how victims responded to the fraud. I am very curious if anyone victimized who emailed CGC on the matter ever received any guidance to contact local, state or federal authorities to report the fraud against them. Five will get you ten they received no such recommendation.

https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/#/ Explain the fraud against you, CGC's response to it, and what's happened with your property since submitting your books back to them. If enough victims complain, they will act.

Hammers? Paint scrapers??

Indeed, the FBI to investigate swappped cases and bad employees and the FTC to look into how this multi-million dollar company's practices are manipulated within or without, putting their customers in potential peril.

IANAL, but CGC is asking for emergency injunctive relief, and the defendent's counsel here is arguing that in such a situation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove buyers have been or will be misled before that's granted. He's arguing that CGC has only presented the three books that he tried to get back which CGC held on to. I suppose it would have been wiser to show examples of the books that have already passed through unsuspecting buyer's hands on the market, that would make the claims of confusion quite evident. Does anyone know if the judge granted what CGC was asking for here or not?

The funny thing about your example is that something exactly like that could actually happen. I've seen plenty of golden-age books with perfectly split spines that are practically flawless. So let's say I took my 9.0 Action Comics #1, and popped it out of its case. I then did the same to my 1.5 and then slipped the Action 1.5 and inner well into the 9.0 case (or just put the 9.0 label in the 1.5 case). If CGC actually did what they say they do in the reholdering/relabeling process, my 1.5 Action Comics once removed from its original inner sleeve, would never have been put back into a 9.0 case. Except, based on what we've seen play out possibly 369 to 2000 times, the people responsible for double checking my 1.5 Action was really a 9.0 failed to perform and I probably would have received a 9.0 Action comics #1 in the mail with a completely split spine held together with glue.

Except the lower grade comics that were substituted into the higher grade cases were, in fact, graded by CGC. That's one of my beefs with the way the complaint was written as they clearly are sidestepping the very important detail about the donor books... They weren't simply pulled off the $1 bin rack from some comic store, they were CGC authenticated genuine books still encased in their inner-sleeve. Also, their own description of the reholdering process indicates they remove the comic sent in from the case and the inner sleeve and the book is assessed prior to being re-encapsulated again.

@comicwiz beat me to it, but I agree with him, that's not what happened here. Since you used Bard, I thought it would be fun to feed this scenario to ChatGPT4 and see what it craps out: *** Under the Lanham Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d), "counterfeit" is defined in the context of civil remedies for trademark infringement, particularly focusing on counterfeit marks. While the Act itself is extensive and covers a broad range of trademark law aspects, the specific definition of a "counterfeit" mark relates to a mark that is unauthorized and identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark. The key aspect of a counterfeit mark under the Lanham Act is its use in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services, which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. Definition Overview: Unauthorized: The production or use of the mark is without the permission of the trademark holder. Identical or Substantially Indistinguishable: The counterfeit mark must be so similar to the genuine registered trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers about the source of the products or services. Registered Mark: The genuine mark must be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Likelihood of Confusion: The use of the counterfeit mark is such that it would likely cause confusion or mistake, or deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods or services by the trademark holder. This definition targets the replication of trademarks for use on unauthorized goods or services, intended to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing legitimate products endorsed or produced by the trademark holder. Application to the Scenario: Given this definition, arguing that a lower-grade book submitted for grading is a "counterfeit" under the Lanham Act would require demonstrating that: The submission involved the use of a mark that is identical or substantially indistinguishable from the grading company's registered trademarks. The mark was used without authorization in a manner likely to cause confusion or deceive about the authenticity or quality of the book as certified by the grading company. However, if the grading company itself applied the mark based on its reassessment process, the situation doesn't straightforwardly fit the concept of "counterfeiting" as defined, since the issue stems more from the exploitation of the company's certification process rather than the unauthorized or deceptive use of a counterfeit mark. In legal strategy, focusing on the deceptive practice or potential for consumer confusion resulting from the misrepresentation of the item's condition might be more applicable under claims of false designation of origin or false advertising, rather than strictly under the definition of counterfeiting. The grading authority, by promising authentication and certification of items (such as comic books, collectibles, etc.), assumes several responsibilities under both the legal framework of trademark law and general principles of consumer protection. Their role and the assurances they provide create expectations among consumers and stakeholders about the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of their grading and authentication services. Here's how their responsibilities play out, especially in light of the scenario where their process has been exploited: Legal and Ethical Responsibilities Accuracy of Grading and Authentication: The grading authority is responsible for ensuring that the grading and authentication processes are conducted accurately and reliably. This includes employing experts, using appropriate technologies, and applying consistent standards to evaluate the items submitted for grading. Misrepresentation and Deception: The authority must avoid any actions or practices that could mislead consumers about the quality, condition, or authenticity of the items they certify. This involves clear communication about what their certification represents and any limitations of their assessment process. Consumer Confidence and Trust: By offering a certification service, the authority implicitly promises to uphold a level of trust with consumers. They are responsible for maintaining this trust by ensuring their certification accurately reflects the item's authenticity and quality. Response to Exploitation or Fraud: If the grading authority's process is exploited or circumvented (as in the scenario of items being swapped and misrepresented), they have a responsibility to address the issue promptly. This could involve investigating the breach, improving security or assessment measures, and taking corrective actions to rectify any misissued certifications. Transparency: The authority should be transparent about their grading process, including any changes or updates to their criteria. This transparency helps consumers make informed decisions and maintains the credibility of the authority's certifications. Legal Compliance: The grading authority must comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection, trademark law, and fraud. This compliance is crucial to avoid legal liabilities and maintain their operational legitimacy. Countermeasures and Improvements In response to exploitation or to prevent future incidents, the grading authority might consider implementing several measures: Enhancing Verification Processes: Improving the thoroughness and accuracy of the re-authentication process to detect tampering or misrepresentation. Technology Upgrades: Using advanced technologies for tamper-evident seals, digital tracking, or other means to ensure the integrity of the item and its certification. Education and Awareness: Informing customers about how to verify the authenticity of certifications and the risks of counterfeit items. Legal Action: Pursuing legal remedies against individuals or entities that fraudulently exploit the certification process. Partnerships: Collaborating with law enforcement, other grading authorities, and industry groups to address broader issues of fraud and counterfeiting in the collectibles market. The grading authority's responsibility is not only to their direct customers but also to the wider community of collectors, investors, and enthusiasts who rely on their certifications as a benchmark of authenticity and quality. Addressing any exploitation of their process is crucial for maintaining the value and integrity of their service. *** I can't wait for the day we have robot lawyers duking it out in court! 400 pages in and we're back to this being an AI discussion!

Check it out...

Ok, well is that not CGC's guaranty? Is it not their job in all of this to guaranty that two sets of eyes looked at a book and deemed it to be an authentic book? I still fail to see how claims of counterfeiting or false designation of origin can stand up when CGC themselves are the ones who are supposed to the be verifying and guaranteeing and slapping their new sleeve, label and holder on the book. 1. If Zanello was indeed just swapping books and then selling them directly representing them as the book on the label, w/o "step 4", ie resubmit to CGC, then I'd agree with you. 2. If CGC never said they pull the book out of the case and the inner well and evaluate it before reencapsulation, I'd also agree with you.

whoops!

By my reckoning of that lawsuit, it seems those employees apparently had free reign throughout the facility to print whatever they wanted, manipulate records, encapsulate with abandon, etc. So anything goes!

People do the right thing sometimes, but insurance companies? Lol.

Hold on a second... You're saying that despite losing your case in court, the accused's family insurance company was so moved by your testimony that they paid you for your loss anyway? What season and episode of the Twilight Zone was this again?

I'm not so sure about that. Let me play devil's advocate for a second... We know this much: Zanello, allegedly, purchased two CGC graded books, one of higher grade, one of lower grade. We still have no clear picture if he had been swapping labels or swapping the CGC sealed inner sleeve containing the comic, but the end result was a frankenstein that ended back up on the desk of someone at CGC. CGC then opened the case AND the inner sleeve, performed some level of examination of the book, reinserted the book into a new inner sleeve and then encapsulated the comic with a new label certifiying the book as legit, anew. Did Zanello violate CGC's terms by doing this? I believe not by their own definition, as their terms only stipulate material changes to the comics themselves as tampering when that didn't happen here. Did Zanello misrepresent what he was sending in to CGC? Clearly, but CGC's main business is in authentication of the collectible. They bear some responsibility here. Seems to me it's on CGC to make sure the book sent in is the book they say it is on the label, even if they don't guaranty the grade. The way the complaint is presented, Zanello was stuffing just any ol' lower grade comic stuck into a higher-grade CGC case/label. That's not what happened. Someone needs to explain to me like I'm five how Zanello is guilty of trademark infringement when he played no role whatsoever in the company's process for reauthentication and encapsulation of books submitted to them? Is he supposed to be guilty simply because he alone is aware that the book inside the case CGC sent back to him isn't the original comic that CGC had graded? How is Zanello supposed to know that CGC did NOT review the condition of his submitted books outside of their case and inner sleeve, like CGC says they do?

It's not like saying either of those things. It's like saying CGC has likely paid, or will pay, a substantial sum to Kroll and to Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP for what amounts to a a copy/paste of the Provenance NGC LCC v. Albright suit, plugging in all the info and pictures dredged up by CGC forum detectives. The comment I made was in context of Lasko heaping praise on his colleagues for how they demonstrated the differences between the books before and after reholder. You may disagree, but @comicwiz did it better.

While it would involve removing and reinserting a book into an inner sleeve, which I don't think has been on anyones radar in all of this, all it would take to effectively duplicate a sloppy ol' sharpie signature on any book is a $550 axidraw and the appropriate color sharpie. I personally don't believe for a second anyone would have the balls to do such a thing on such big books and then send them into CGC.

@6:14 ... Yeah, I have to wonder if Lasko actually gets it. The defendents weren't inserting just any ol' comic into cases with higher grades and selling them off as legitimately graded CGC slabs. No, the defendents were buying legitimate lower-graded CGC books, and either swapping the labels with the higher-grade encased books or swapping the comics *still in their CGC sealed inner sleeves*, and then sending those frankensteins into CGC for CGC to recertify and present with a new label and case. What the defendents sold to consumers was not a counterfeit. It was a legitimately recertififed/reholdered CGC slabbed book. Did the defendents perpetrate fraud against CGC in order to get that result? I personally think so, but I also think CGC must bear some responsibility for not actually regrading the books. Did the defendents break terms and conditions with CGC on submission? If you look at CGC's terms and conditions section 3, I would argue that they did not, since no alteration of the comic itself occured. There's nothing in the language there about altering the CGC case itself, the label or the inner sleeve. Perhaps the plaintiff understands this, which is why they inserted the snippet indicating they believe the defendent also side-stepped the "4th step" and was selling books they had swapped out w/o sending in for recert. That's a different story and a better argument for direct manipulation/tampering/counterfeiting. Far as I can tell, they present ZERO evidence that's the case though. @8:35 Mr. Lasko confirms that he doesn't get what's actually going on. CGC IS the last to touch the comic as the recertification/reholdering process. The process, as CGC itself defines it, involves removing the comic from its hard plastic case AND its inner sleeve, given a rudimentary inspection, and then inserted into a new sleeve and case w/ label. From that point forward, the comic, nor it's label, as far as anyone can tell, is never removed from the new CGC case. @17:40 - 2000 books submitted under C.B.S. account... I'd love to know exactly how CGC is separating the books sent in by Zanello/Riva from the books sent in by Comic Book Station if they're all under the same account? How could CGC possibly know the difference from their end who sent in what? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Doesn't make a lot of sense that CBS isn't a party named as a defendent either, especially given the number of listed books on their insta and facebook pages, the thanksgiving pics, and of course the heat gun pic. @36:00 - Giving credit to the CGC lawyers for doing such a great job... I'll be brutally honest here. Whatever CGC paid Kroll or the outside counsel involved in gathering all the info needed to dump into this complaint, it was probably way too much. The CGC board detectives, i.e. @comicwiz and his posse, did most of the hard work digging through the historical sales records to identify the different sellers, scouring over book scans to find the obvious, and so obvious, swaps, etc. Dozens upon dozens of man hours of uncompensated research. This complaint just regurgitates a lot of that work, so maybe don't pat the legal eagles too hard on the back. Honestly, I would be very surprised if there were not a half a dozen lawyers scrambling to be the first to file a class action suit as we speak.

Finally! A lawyer in our midst! I've been harping on CGC to bring the FBI into this for hundreds of freakin' pages, which I know they absolutely could do with a phone call if they wanted to. The problem with those who actually would like to see some *criminal* justice here is that certified collectibles group already has a track record where no criminal investigation takes place, and the whole messy incident winds up locked down in secrecy via settlement agreement. NGC, CGC's sister company, went through these paces with a fellow named Richard Albright over on the collector coin side of things. Everything CGC has filed thus far in this case mirrors what they did in that one. See: Provenance NGC LLC v. Albright, 1:23-cv-00406 That suit was settled last August. We've yet to see Mr. Albright face any criminal charges for wire fraud. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/11938/ My fear is history repeating itself. While I understand it's still possible charges could drop before any SoL expiry, is it not unusual CGC would be asking victims of this fraud to send their books/evidence in to CGC for their review instead of suggesting those victims reach out to local/state or federal law enforcement agents to at least file a complaint? Wouldn't having all of that evidence fumbling through the multiple hands (heck, even possibly some alleged bad employees who walk out with books!) at CGC not create a problem for any future criminal investigation and prosecution?

so, a couple of things. 1. the complaint for some reason fails to mention the defendents were buying CGC comics of lower grade and replacing the higher grade books with them, without modifying the comic whatsover. The complaint makes it sound as if they were just taking any old book and stuffing it into the CGC case when there's actually no evidence of that at all and it's just as likely they were swapping only the labels. Does it matter? I think it does since this is a request for injunctive relief, so their allegations had best be spot on here. 2. "skipped the fourth step... and proceeded straight to offering for sale..." Ummm, hey CGC do you realize what it is you're admitting to here? Lord almighty. So, just how long has THAT been going on? How many others out there do you suspect have been doing the same?

This is a rather nuanced case of trademark infringement that delves into the scope of protection a company like CGC can enjoy against practices that exploit their processes... Where damage to the trademark has occurred, but where there is no actual counterfeiting or alteration of the trademarked goods and services. https://www.cgccomics.com/submit/services-fees/cgc-grading/ This is an admission by CGC that they must perform at least some degree of analysis on any book sent in for reholder to determine if any "damage occurred post-encapsulation." https://boards.cgccomics.com/topic/510739-reholder-service-clarification/#:~:text=Reholder services remove the book from its,in a new sleeve and new case This is clarification that books sent in for reholder are removed from their old outer case and inner sleeve. Any reasonable person would agree that this would allow detection of things such as pages ripped out, missing MV stamps, severe dings on 9.8's, etc., all readily apparent to whomever at CGC was tasked with pulling the book out of its outer shell and inner sleeve and performing this rudimentary check for damage prior to putting it inside a new sleeve and encapsulating it with a new label. It also begs the question, what the qualifications were of the person(s) making this call? If they aren't graders, what are they? https://www.cgccomics.com/submit/services-fees/cgc-grading/ Here, CGC tells us that books sent in for regrading accompanied with their original label, which is what a reholder could be classifed as, are not guaranteed to receive the same grade. Once again, implying there is some level of reassessment performed at CGC with any book submitted. https://www.cgccomics.com/legal/terms-and-conditions/ Here, CGC defines tampering. However, all of the examples include alterations to the submitted book itself, when in this case you have swapped out books and/or labels which are unadulterated. CGC giving us a little reminder their cases are tamper-evident. This is an aside, but I had to do a double take when I read this. So, here, CGC is saying they reserve the right to charge someone 0.1% of its declared value per month to cover the insurance if a book has to sit on their premises waiting. Interesting. So, if I have a Superman #1 valued at $1,000,000 that sits on the shelf for a month, that's $1001 a month for storage and insurance. Ok, well, in 2021, as an associate member, it would have cost me $6001 to get that Superman 1 graded under the $5K cap for walkthrough, plus the month for it to sit on the shelf, plus 0.1% insurance. Now in 2024, that Superman 1 will cost me $36,001 to get graded and to sit on their shelf for a month. One of the justifications I read for why this huge jump in costs was due to insurance. Really? The insurance premiums went up that high? Anyways, back to what I was getting at. This of course hinges on CGC's definition of tampered and genuine. Their own definition makes no mention of alteration or manipulation of their own case, label, or inner sleeve so they may want to modify those defintions. NOW! All that said, I believe the defense in this case has a very good chance of successfully challenging CGC's argument of trademark infringement here. The assurances CGC provides its customers imply a committment to verifying the authenticity and the condition of a book, even upon resubmission for reholder before they reissue the book encased in the CGC slab and label. This assurance is quintessential to the trust and value associated with their trademark. If an individual has exploited the process by submitting items which CGC themselves did not properly or adequately reassess, leading to an inaccurate recertification, then the disruption here primarily arises from CGC's own process and execution failure. It can be argued the onus is on CGC to accurately verify an item's authenticity and condition, whether it's the first of fiftieth submission of the same book. If this process has a hole you can drive a truck through, then it deeply undermines the reliability of the certification service itself, and by extension, the trademark's value promise of authenticity and grade. It might be challenging to argue that the trademark has been infringed upon by external parties when the perceived dilution of the trademark's value could be seen as stemming from the company's failure to uphold it's own standards when reholdering books, if we are to believe what CGC has written in their own descriptions and terms. Bit of a chicken and egg situation... Which came first, the weak process controls that led to an exploitable weakness which eventually lead to harm or dilution to the reputation of the certification the company provides, or the dude who found a way to exploit those weak processes, and succeeded, time and again, then got caught, which then caused harm. There are examples of books we've all seen where the high grade doesn't match the comic's appearance, and CGC gets dumped on regularly because of that. While everyone has always just assumed the unexpected variances in grade are due to what day of the week it is or whether the grader got lucky the night before, what if the reality is that others have been abusing this very same weakness for years? I think CGC is going to have an uphill battle arguing they aren't at least in some way, responsible for the harm to their own reputation due to process failure, I don't think they can pin it all on the defendent.

Thanks Mike!

I saw that, but was hoping he could dial it in a little closer and peg it to a sale from the US or UK as worthpoint doesn't track sales on eBay country tld's outside of those two.