Extremely offensive baby products on Amazon by brand Fonfella

[smithereen]

I came across this product on Amazon whilst looking for baby clothes: www.amazon.co.uk/WANTED-BLOWJOB-BABYGROW-Months-SLEEVE/dp/B00D90UJ4U/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1374869417&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=baby+grow+all+daddy+wanted
I'm obviously concerned that this has slipped through the net at Amazon and sure its hard for them to monitor everything, but this is beyond the pale. More importantly though, I'm totally shocked that British company Fonfella could come up with this product in the first place. I've raised a complaint with Amazon, but some moral support would be great! Feel free to follow up with Fonfella too:
Fonfella Limited, Po Box 444, Sutton, SM1 9LJ - UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 207 9934387 (Lines open from 10am - 5pm Mon ? Fri)
Email: [email protected]

"68 you owe me one" is a child's Tshirt???

""68 you owe me one" is a child's Tshirt???"

That is what prompted my comment. What sort of person buys these T-shirts for their children?

i had this one for ds2
www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/i-ate-my-twin/?fdo=&productid=436&style=i&color=39&size=18M&stype=&is_fivestar=

which my mum thought was terribly offensive to people who'd had twin to twin transfusion syndrome pregnancies, but I thought was hilarious as he was so fat.

Also this one
www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/cuter-than-baby-jesus

which would have probably been offensive to the ladies at the church toddler group, but imo, it takes all sorts to make the world go round, and if something is not actually harming anyone, then its errrrr harmless.

damn thought i converted links. Oh well, im sure people are clever enough to copy and paste if they care enough

Looks like the blow job babygro has gone....

Shame about the others.

ooh bit slow on the uptake sorry

I know this thread has been down for a long time, but i just saw on the news that the same people responsible have just been found guilty of selling items supposed to be for charity and keeping the money. They have been fined £88,000
Full story here www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842159/Couple-fake-One-Direction-Race-Life-merchandise-garden-shed-ordered-pay-75-000.html

I can't believe ebay and amazon are allowing them to continue selling on their websites it makes my blood boil.

Why on Earth are ebay & Amazon letting them get away with it?

I can't believe Amazon are standing behind them even though they have Scammed people and charities out of Money! I have contacted [email protected] and am awaiting a response from them, If others do the same they might wake up and smell the coffee!

Kate

I think you're right Kate, do you know the email for ebay?

A lot of naive posts on this thread from people who have clearly never run a successful retail business.

I myself have an 18 month old and whilst I personally would not dress him in one of these baby grows

As an aside, how the hell can you properly endorse a product if you wouldn't use it/dress your kids in it etc?

locking I don't think I would use the word "successful business" to describe the endeavors of a couple of morally bankrupt criminals who are happy to cheat charities

Not at all surprised that someone who produces babygros with slogans like that is also conning folk into thinking they are giving to charity.
Definitely morally bankrupt and now probably financially bankrupt too.

You think all the managing directors at Argos, Tesco etc would wear or use all their products and clothing? Business is to make money, it doesn't matter what you sell or how you sell it as long as it's not illegal. Most companies could not care less what they sell as long as the product is profitable. You guys have just fallen for all the corporate speak you've heard on Dragons' Den.

Pastperfect, if you check out their eBay, Amazon and website shops (and past sales) you can clearly see that 99% of their stock is legitimate. They are still selling wrist bands for Help the Heroes and some of that money is going to charity. We don't know if any of the money from the Run for Life sales went to charity or not - you're just assuming that it did not, despite evidence to the contrary.

They're VAT-registered with a decent turnover and they pay their taxes. You cannot deny that they are running a 'successful business', if you bother to look below the surface.

Those of you who think £75,000 is a fair (relatively) fine, have no experience in how the proceed of crime act operates. POCAs are legalised extortion, in cases like these.

If you don't qualify for legal aid then effectively you cannot dispute the fine or the costs, because in so doing the legal expenses accrued would offset any reduction in the fine.

The prosecutors can to an extent just pluck any figure out of the air - it's all just a cash cow for the treasury.

If these guys qualified for legal aid I bet they could halve that fine quite easily.

POCAs were never designed to prosecute these sorts of people - it was brought into statute to reclaim the property and cars from the drug barons who had fled to Spain.

And for those people complaining about no prison on the Daily Mail article - if you do not pay the fine then you more than likely do go to prison. You usually get 3 or 6 months to pay the fine, very rarely any longer. Do you think that's fair - giving a couple who have genuinely worked hard and made a bad mistake in 1-2 product lines (less than 1% of their business), 6 months to pay £90,000, or they go to prison?

Whereas if you're a benefit scrounging cheat, sitting on your bum all day, you get to pay back your ill-gotten gains at 5 quid a week?

In many cases you wouldn't even pay that back if you lived to 100.

Aw is that you Natalie?

Why not respond to the issues being discussed like an adult, instead of attempting to derail them with playground baiting?

By your logic anybody who doesn't agree with you is the person in question, it's just disappointing to have to converse with that standard of intellect.

There aren't any "issues to discuss" just a slight pleasure at the partucularly stupid and extremely dishonest Natalie received their just deserts.

Contravening the Trademarks Act by producing £10k worth of knock offs does not a successful business make and can hardly be described as a "mistake" more willful intent than misguided error.

If as you claim 99% of their merchandise is legit that would account for almost £1million of additional stock - in which case you the morally bankrupt Natalie and her partner will have no problem coughing up for the confiscation order which I suspect I have a clearer understanding of than you morally bankrupt Natalie and her dishonest partner having special used in that area at one point.

All sound entirely fair to me

On what basis are they 'stupid'? Regarding dishonesty and the charity aspect, you're just assuming that Daily Mail reporting that can be trusted which everybody knows that it cannot. There is evidence to show that some of the money did go to charity, which of course DM ignores because that doesn't suit their agenda. Admittedly it seems likely that only a small percentage did, maybe as low as 10%, that's not illegal in itself though.

I'm also having difficulty believing that they produced the goods themselves in a shed. Are we sure they did not perhaps just store a few boxes of stock there, perhaps with a tagging gun or some other manufacturing paraphernalia lying around?

There is a strong chance that they have lied and committed fraud intentionally, I'm not saying they categorically haven't, but there appears to be a mob mentality around this case and cases like it, without anybody bothering to check the facts (or at least question Daily Mail's integrity as an accurate news provider). Even if they are guilty as charged with no excuses, the rest of their business is clearly run legally. Have you never made a mistake in your life?

The fine is clearly disproportionate to the offence, too, and POCAs aren't fair or just for cases like these. It's important that the justice system maintains a degree of proportionality and doesn't just operate on a 'two eyes for an eye' basis. It shouldn't be able to make people homeless at the drop of a hat just because it knows it'll have the public's backing, due to the nature of the offence.

I did get a response from Amazon saying they would look into it but wouldn't be able to get back to us. I notice that they have now changed their name to JNR Merchandise from Fonfella

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aag/main?ie=UTF8&asin=&isAmazonFulfilled=&isCBA=&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P&orderID=&seller=A1J5U378Y3M16X

Just to confirm, they just got a £90,000 bill, and now you're engaging in a crusade to get them kicked off Amazon, giving them even less chance to pay it?

There are bigger fish to fry if you have that much spare time on your hands.

Sorry I'm new to this app, could someone tell me what the slogan on the babygrow was? I've clicked on the original link and either amazon have shut it down or it doesn't seem to be working thanks :) x