How to Sell UGG boots on ebay ?

justpaper

I got 2 pairs of these just laying around packed,

I dont have a ebay account, so i typed up the listing and gave it to a friend,

the listing was Cut off by ebay due to a VERO member Ugg_holdings (u know that UGG crazy copyright stuff)

Now at the End of the day, Deckers corp do not have Copyright of the word UGG,

Anyways It seems like even saying Sheepskin boots will get the listing cut off,

So is their a sure fire way of selling the boots on ebay, with out getting the listing cut off?

And they are not fakes,..they are proper UGG boots but they are not UGG australia branded boots (owned by Deckers corp /UGG Holdings ltd)

RFW

justpaper wrote: »

I got 2 pairs of these just laying around packed,

I dont have a ebay account, so i typed up the listing and gave it to a friend,

the listing was Cut off by ebay due to a VERO member Ugg_holdings (u know that UGG crazy copyright stuff)

Now at the End of the day, Deckers corp do not have Copyright of the word UGG,

Anyways It seems like even saying Sheepskin boots will get the listing cut off,

So is their a sure fire way of selling the boots on ebay, with out getting the listing cut off?

And they are not fakes,..they are proper UGG boots but they are not UGG australia branded boots (owned by Deckers corp /UGG Holdings ltd)

I'm not sure I understand what you are selling. Deckers own the company "UGG Holdings" and from that are brand owners for boots/shoes with the UGG name. If the products you are selling are not made by UGG then you can't say they are. If they have been branded as "UGG" by another company then they are fakes. If they are not branded at all but look similar to "UGG" style then they can probably be sold without a problem (as long as the style is not copied) but you can't describe them as UGG or "like UGG" or even "NOT UGG" in an Ebay title or description. Its similar to having a roll of sticky tape and calling it Sellotape if the product wasn't made by the company "Sellotape" or calling a vacuum cleaner a "hoover" if it is not manufactured by the company "Hoover".

If the boots you have are "sheepskin boots" then you can call them that without a problem.

FloFlo

''Deckers Outdoor Corporation decided not to challenge the decision in a higher court, but still hold the trademark in the United States and the European Union and continue to refer to their product as "UGG footwear".

The above is from wikipedia(sp?) so I assume that in the UK they still own the trademark.

RFW

FloFlo wrote: »

''Deckers Outdoor Corporation decided not to challenge the decision in a higher court, but still hold the trademark in the United States and the European Union and continue to refer to their product as "UGG footwear".

The above is from wikipedia(sp?) so I assume that in the UK they still own the trademark.

So you learn something new every day. "UGG" was a generic name BEFORE it was a brand name. I would guess then they would only be 'genuine' if they were manufactured in Australia where it was still a generic term. In the UK it is probably only associated with the company that owns the name, ie "Deckers" and not considered to be a Generic name. As the UK brand owners "Deckers" can do what they like with the name in the UK and stop people from selling on Ebay if they want. It may be wise to check with Trading Standards who may offer some advice as to how to describe/sell them within the law. Have a search on Ebay see how others are selling them.

Link to the Wiki entry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots

kyleapt342

i just bought a pair of these stupidly overpriced boots off ebay and the seller didnt seem to have any problems. He had 45 pairs of the genuine article and his auction ran its course. hhmmmmm interesting

FloFlo

Could be a licensed seller?

StaffsSW

kyleapt342 wrote: »

i just bought a pair of these stupidly overpriced boots off ebay and the seller didnt seem to have any problems. He had 45 pairs of the genuine article and his auction ran its course. hhmmmmm interesting

That would indicate he is a licensed re-seller of the boots then - having so many available, along with not having the listing pulled would suggest that he has some sort fo supply deal with the manufacturers or distributors.

veryunsure

The word ugg means sheepskin boot. The word UGG or Ugg is a name - hence the trademark rules.
Could you use the lower case word (noun) rather than UGG name (proper noun)?

Only an idea. I'm basing this on grammar rather than legal knowledge.

RFW

veryunsure wrote: »

The word ugg means sheepskin boot. The word UGG or Ugg is a name - hence the trademark rules.
Could you use the lower case word (noun) rather than UGG name (proper noun)?

Only an idea. I'm basing this on grammar rather than legal knowledge.

The 'bot' that trawls the pages looking for such things doesn't know the difference between upper and lower case.

justpaper

RFW wrote: »

So you learn something new every day. "UGG" was a generic name BEFORE it was a brand name. I would guess then they would only be 'genuine' if they were manufactured in Australia where it was still a generic term. In the UK it is probably only associated with the company that owns the name, ie "Deckers" and not considered to be a Generic name. As the UK brand owners "Deckers" can do what they like with the name in the UK and stop people from selling on Ebay if they want. It may be wise to check with Trading Standards who may offer some advice as to how to describe/sell them within the law. Have a search on Ebay see how others are selling them.

Link to the Wiki entry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots

got the below txt from ugg wars, .. this is all crazy, going to list them as sheepskin boots,

While generic terms can be snuck into the federal trademark office, the law is quite clear that generic terms can't not be protected in any legal court anywhere in the world. Despite this, Deckers Outdoor Corporation and their subsidiary, UGG Holdings Inc. have been threatening legal action against companies that continue to use the generic words to describe the Australian icon, ugg boots.

RFW

justpaper wrote: »

got the below txt from ugg wars, .. this is all crazy, going to list them as sheepskin boots,

While generic terms can be snuck into the federal trademark office, the law is quite clear that generic terms can't not be protected in any legal court anywhere in the world. Despite this, Deckers Outdoor Corporation and their subsidiary, UGG Holdings Inc. have been threatening legal action against companies that continue to use the generic words to describe the Australian icon, ugg boots.

I think in the UK at least they may have a point, I for one was unaware that UGG was a generic term until this thread. To contest their UK rights you'd have to prove that a substantial amount of people in the UK believed it to be a generic term, or someone like Oxford English dictionary to confirm it.