How do they get away with this?

[Geo]

Loumox Mavic Air - Arctic White Drone - 4K Camera, 32MP Sphere Panoramas!

Pardon Our Interruption...

 

[The Editor]

How does who get away with what exactly?

 

[The Editor]

Ahh...... now I see.

I don’t know.

 

[msinger]

It's pretty disingenuous to advertise a product using someone else's images (like the DJI images used in that listing), but there's usually nothing wrong with creating a product that looks like another product.

 

[DagDerniT]

That listing most likely is a scam and you will most likely have to file a claim with Paypal or Ebay Buyer Protection when you receive something other than what the person has listed. Look at the persons feedback and where they are selling from. Also, read the description very carefully....

 

[Thomas B]

That listing most likely is a scam and you will most likely have to file a claim with Paypal or Ebay Buyer Protection when you receive something other than what the person has listed. Look at the persons feedback and where they are selling from. Also, read the description very carefully....

Agreed. If it doesn’t say DJI and have the DJI logo in the ad I’d avoid doing business and report it to eBay.

 

[msinger]

If it doesn’t say DJI and have the DJI logo in the ad I’d avoid doing business and report it to eBay.

It's not a DJI drone though. Per the eBay listing, they are selling this drone:

61.23US $ |LAUMOX M69G FPV RC Drone 4K Camera Optical Flow Selfie Dron Foldable Wifi Quadcopter Helicopter VS VISUO XS816 SG106 SG700 X12|Camera Drones| - AliExpress

Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com

www.aliexpress.com

 

[Thomas B]

It's not a DJI drone though. Per the eBay listing, they are selling this drone:

61.23US $ |LAUMOX M69G FPV RC Drone 4K Camera Optical Flow Selfie Dron Foldable Wifi Quadcopter Helicopter VS VISUO XS816 SG106 SG700 X12|Camera Drones| - AliExpress

Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com

www.aliexpress.com

But the called it a “ .... Mavic Air...” to mislead potential buyers

 

[msinger]

But the called it a “ .... Mavic Air...” to mislead potential buyers

Perhaps? Or did they copy a Mavic Air listing and forget to change the title and some of the photos?

Whatever the case, if one takes time to read the description, it will be very easy to tell the seller is not trying to sell a DJI Mavic Air.

 

[Thomas B]

Perhaps? Or did they copy a Mavic Air listing and forget to change the title and some of the photos?

Whatever the case, if one takes time to read the description, it will be very easy to tell the seller is not trying to sell a DJI Mavic Air.

Agree, but it did seem like a serundipity for the OP so I had concerns for folks in general.

 

[msinger]

I'm still not sure what the OP was trying to tell us. I guess we'll have to stay tuned

 

[old man mavic]

i agree that people who are drone savvy can see straight away that it is not a real mavic air,just by looking at it , but maybe someone not in the know could think that is what they are getting because they call it a mavic air in the add

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Chinese ebay seller.
Imagine, a Chinese using dodgy marketing to sell a blatant copy of a successful Chinese product.
Not sure if China has protection for their own companies against this sort of practice, but it's certainly not the case when they copy other countries successful products.

They are certainly masters of deconstruction and copying anything to a t.
Apart from the 1000mah battery (about 42% capacity of the Air) it seems to have RTH function, perhaps sensors etc, but they could be fake and inoperational.
It's certainly a toy, 80m, no mention if GPS or simple VPS for that stability they mention, AAA batts in the controller (and not included, lol).

I have to admit, when I first glanced at the ad, and saw the price, I thought simple scam.
Then I saw the non DJI brand name (Loumax).

Yes, they will sell a LOT of these to the unknowing.
And make a heap of $$$.

DJI should do something if it is within their legal capability there.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

It's pretty disingenuous to advertise a product using someone else's images (like the DJI images used in that listing), but there's usually nothing wrong with creating a product that looks like another product.

Really? Tell that to Apple. How many times have they gone after Samsung for producing phones that looked like iPhones...

 

[tmgrood]

Really? Tell that to Apple. How many times have they gone after Samsung for producing phones that looked like iPhones...

Yes. But they didn’t call them iPhones which is the point here.
Loumax is calling it a Mavic Air.

 

[msinger]

Loumax is calling it a Mavic Air.

LAUMOX is actually only calling it the "M69G" (as shown in their official store). The owner of that eBay listing decided to include "Mavic" in the title for some reason (maybe by mistake).

 

[Milo187]

It's pretty disingenuous to advertise a product using someone else's images (like the DJI images used in that listing), but there's usually nothing wrong with creating a product that looks like another product.

Look a little closer ... it looks like a Mavic air but notice the posts extending from the motors and the slight body differences. The unsuspecting buyer will pull the trigger and get ripped off!

 

[Maviac]

It's pretty disingenuous to advertise a product using someone else's images (like the DJI images used in that listing), but there's usually nothing wrong with creating a product that looks like another product.

Sometimes, but in this case it is a pretty clear trade dress violation. DJI could easily win a case against them under the Lanham Act if they felt like pursuing it.

 

[msinger]

DJI could easily win a case against them under the Lanham Act if they felt like pursuing it.

That's likely not going to be helpful in this case since those companies are not from the US. Regardless, I'm sure DJI has the resources to go after this company if they are violating some kind of law.

 

[Maviac]

That's likely not going to be helpful in this case since those companies are not from the US. Regardless, I'm sure DJI has the resources to go after this company if they are violating some kind of law.

They’re clearly violating DJI’s IP (this is virtually textbook trade dress infringement) and they’re subject to jurisdiction under US law because they are operating in the stream of commerce (enforcement is another matter but they could enjoin any service provider in the US from hosting any products or images). And DJI certainly has the resources to go after them, but whether they’d bother is another matter. I’ve advised companies regarding similar situations and sometimes the offender is such a small player and unlikely to harm the business that it’s not worth the time and expense.

In this case the infringement is so obvious they probably wouldn’t bother defending it.