> It seems like if you're a small brand, like Fuse Chicken, you should be able to become the exclusive supplier of your own product on Amazon. For anyone else you sell your product to, include a "this may not end up on Amazon" clause and then you're sure everything on Amazon came direct from you.
I'm pretty sure a clause like that would be an infringement of rights grants by the First Sale doctrine [0] and would be void (in the US at least).
First sale doctrine doesn’t prohibit two parties from contracting with each other. There’s no reason why you cannot have an official Fuse Chicken SKU or even exclusive to Amazon barcode or model number. Other sellers are able to sell your product, but not with that SKU.
Edit: I misremembered, the product was the Ripple Rug (ripplerug.com) and the problem was arbitrage where people were selling it on eBay for higher than retail, then drop-shipping via Amazon. Returns when it showed up in an Amazon box were paid for by the manufacturer, not the drop-ship seller. Links in the News section of their site, look for stories in 2016-2017.
(original post)
I can't recall the name of the product or find it with some quick searches, but I recall stories of one product that did precisely that after their product started being counterfeited heavily and undercut on Amazon - they have a cheaper version that's available on Amazon and a higher quality version available only directly from them.
I believe it was basically a stiff synthetic material blanket with a bunch of large holes and attachment points such that those points could be attached together in a bunch of different ways to make a wide variety of configurations for cats to play in.
I'm pretty sure a clause like that would be an infringement of rights grants by the First Sale doctrine [0] and would be void (in the US at least).
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine