Seized goods from Snug Australia

chris43

I ordered snug boots from Australia for my daughter on 21 January. She received a letter from Stephens & Associates, a London based law firm, together with a letter from the UK Border Agency advising that her boots had been intercepted and seeking her permission for them to be destroyed. Apparently the goods infringe the UK and EC Community trademark rights of Deckers Outdoor Corporation who own ugg boots.The correspondence received implies that neither the law firm or the UK Border Agency will enter in to any further dialogue on this.
It seems that if she doesn't agree to have them destroyed the law firm will start proceedings against her. However she really wanted those boots as we have bought from them before. We contacted Snug Australia who say they are currently trying to resolve this matter but time is running out for us to respond to the law firm.
Has this happened to anyone else and can anyone help please?
Thanks.

Equaliser123

chris43 wrote: »

I ordered snug boots from Australia for my daughter on 21 January. She received a letter from Stephens & Associates, a London based law firm, together with a letter from the UK Border Agency advising that her boots had been intercepted and seeking her permission for them to be destroyed. Apparently the goods infringe the UK and EC Community trademark rights of Deckers Outdoor Corporation who own ugg boots.The correspondence received implies that neither the law firm or the UK Border Agency will enter in to any further dialogue on this.
It seems that if she doesn't agree to have them destroyed the law firm will start proceedings against her. However she really wanted those boots as we have bought from them before. We contacted Snug Australia who say they are currently trying to resolve this matter but time is running out for us to respond to the law firm.
Has this happened to anyone else and can anyone help please?
Thanks.

I'm afraid this is what happens when you buy counterfeit goods. Whilst your daighter may really want the boots, the trademark owner really doesn't want to be ripped off either.

Did you pay by credit card?

Hintza

Depends if you believe Ugg is brand name or a generic term. I haven't a clue but my reading on the countless "are my Uggs fake threads" on here would suggest that might be the case.

So this could be bully boy tactics.

Intersting wording from the Snug website:-

Please note, we are not affiliated in any way with the Deckers Outdoor Corporation and their "Ugg Australia" brand. All ugg boots sold at our on-line store are made in Australia from 100% natural sheepskin.

Equaliser123

I think that if they have already managed to seize the goods then they will have the backing of a Court order.

bingo_bango

The name 'Ugg Australia' is trademarked (see here).

'Ugg' is a generic term. What you'll find the most likely scenario is that the Snug boots are actually infringing on a registered design by Ugg Australia rather than the name itself. I have no idea what enforcement powers the Borders Agency have in relation to IP crime, but the lawyers do have civil powers to seize and destroy that they can use.

Hintza

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/ugg-how-a-minnow-put-the-boot-into-a-fashion-giant-523444.html

Think that covers part of the story.

Go on fight corporate america....:)

DVardysShadow

Hintza wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/ugg-how-a-minnow-put-the-boot-into-a-fashion-giant-523444.html

Think that covers part of the story.

Go on fight corporate america....:)

Interesting. It looks like the 'genuine' ugg boots are in fact the fakes. I think the article is enough of a basis to at least stand up to the the law firm and the UK borders agency in correspondence. The UK borders agency are only doing what they are told by corporate america - perhaps they will be minded to take on board some other view of the matter.

chris43

Thanks for all the comments and the link to the article. We would love to fight for the right to buy genuine Australian sheepskin boots whatever they are called but the bullying tactics and the threat of a legal battle that we can't afford to enter are worrying.
There is a principle at stake here we know but we like to have a roof over our heads too.
Is there a legal argument that we could use?

Hintza

chris43 wrote: »

Is there a legal argument that we could use?

Sounds as if the trademark is still (supposedly) enforced in the rest of the world.

I would write them a letter enclosing copies of these articles and disputing that Snugs are in fact in breach of trademark but if they (Border Agency) are confident in their position to carry on and destroy the boots but you reserve the right to seek legal redress and recompense via the courts if they destroy your property unlawfully.

That then allows them to destroy them without you facing a potential bill. But leaves things open if you fancy a go.

(I don't know if what I propose would work or not)

Equaliser123

Hintza wrote: »

Sounds as if the trademark is still (supposedly) enforced in the rest of the world.

I would write them a letter enclosing copies of these articles and disputing that Snugs are in fact in breach of trademark but if they (Border Agency) are confident in their position to carry on and destroy the boots but you reserve the right to seek legal redress and recompense via the courts if they destroy your property unlawfully.

That then allows them to destroy them without you facing a potential bill. But leaves things open if you fancy a go.

(I don't know if what I propose would work or not)

They could only seize if the items are counterfeit. If they are, they can be destroyed.

OP - do not get into a legal debate with these guys. They will win and, potentially, you will have an enormous legal bill to foot.

esuhl

From Wikipedia:

"Bruce and Bronwyn McDougall... started legal action to have ug, ugg, and ugh boots removed from the Australian Trademarks Registry. In January 2006, they succeeded... Deckers Outdoor Corporation decided not to challenge the decision... but still hold the trademark in the United States and the European Union."

I'm not an expert, but I don't think it's a clear-cut case since the term "ugg" was used generically before the trademarks were registered. The question is: do you want to sue Deckers to test the law? You might win the case and keep the boots or lose and owe tens of thousands of pounds...