[Natsu]

> And where are you getting this 1% number from?

I would assume it's from this part of the article:

"How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit."

It was closer to 1.3% if that makes you feel any better.

[anigbrowl]

That doesn't speak to the point I made about distributor relationships. There's a reasonable presumption here that anyone selling such merchandise actually offering counterfeit goods because Chanel does not sell into the wholesale market.

[Natsu]

It's also possible to sell second-hand goods.

That said, as I wrote elsewhere, the contention is not that they were wrong, only that they did not, in fact, check.

[anigbrowl]

You're effectively asking that conviction precede an arrest, albeit in relation to a website rather than a person. That's not how things work; a strong showing of probable cause is sufficient to act, and the complainant is bonded against the possibility of misidentification. That's only $20,000 per claim of infringement, but when you think about it that adds up to a total of over $6 million that Chanel has paid over to the court as surety that it is acting in good faith. In other words, the company is literally putting its money where its mouth is, and will lose some or all of that money to the extent that its allegations are inaccurate.

[Natsu]

I don't think that asking for evidence to back up accusations is the same as having conviction precede arrest. And I still don't know how the counterfeit products ordered from three of the sites constitute evidence against the two hundred something others.

Perhaps the only thing that would help me understand would be if there was evidence unknown to me linking all the sites to the same group. Something like that would make the case far more comprehensible.