I have read the lawsuit. 70+ pages of fun, to be sure. (That was sarcasm, BTW).
The suit is mainly about Trademark infringement, but it also brings up several other points as well.
- The lawsuit alleges that the Webers are knowingly encouraging IBC's to violate the terms of their contracts.
- Products purchased through ToP are not covered by the MK guarantee, therefore ToP is potentially fostering ill-will for MK with their (ToP) customers. (For example, if a ToP customer wants to return a product to MK, it is not covered, so the result could be ill-will from the customer and damaging to MK's reputation.)
- ToP also carries non-MK products, and that could be confusing to customers.
- MK wants ToP's records so MK can find out which IBC's are supplying ToP with merchandise.
I have also read the commentary on the anti-MK sites. The general consensus is that the poor Webers are being wrongly persecuted and MK doesn't have a case.
I disagree on both counts.
Since I am not a lawyer, I am not going to argue the legal strength of the lawsuit. The courts will decide that. There may be readers that have a legal background - by all means, share your views if that is the case.
I will, however, express my views on other matters, since I cannot express them on the anti-Mk sites.
There are 2 things I find puzzling:
- The Webers are applauded for helping IBC's violate their contracts. Isn't that one of the things the anti-MKers villify Directors for doing?
- The Webers give 50% of wholesale for products, and they are seen as wonderful; yet MK offers a 90% of wholesale buyback and they are villified for this.
There is more I want to say, but I will post this much so the discussion will get rolling. I will add more later tonight.
Please give your views on this lawsuit, no matter which side you are on.