Ebay. GHD Straighteners. Solicitors. Help Please!!!

syanide

Jason1972 wrote: »

Sorry for this being long

Hi there
My partner bought a pair of supposedly genuine new GHD Mk 4 Straighteners at a boot fair approx 10 weeks ago. She paid £25 for them. My partner kept them and kept them without being used then decided to sell them as did not think she would ever use them. We listed them on Ebay and had considerable interest. After a few days they were taken off with Ebay stating Trading Violation as the reason. I then looked into it and found that there was a lot of fake ones floating about, after finding from various places what are genuine ones and what are fake i decided to relist them (due to my partner and myself believing them to be genuine). Again they were taken off for the same reason. We then had a limited ebay account. We sorted that out and decided to hold onto them and give to a family member as a gift.
Yesterday Saturday 21st June my partner recieved a letter through the door from a Solicitors Firm in Manchester called JMW, here is most parts of the letter below.

SNIP....

This happened to my wife. The same letter from the same people. All I did was response via email to the solicitors with the reference number on the letter and stated that they had been bought them at a car boot sale last year and never got round to using them till a month before they were sold. With the serial number they ask for (who keeps serial numbers) I told them that as household insurance doesnt require that you have them why would I keep it. As the GHD's were from a car boot sale I do not know who the seller was either.

They resposed in the email to say thankyou for the information and the case was closed. They also sent out a letter to state the same thing.

Brooker_Dave

Jason1972 wrote: »

Any help would be greatfully appreciated.
Jason & Kay

Is not the bigger picture here, contempt for the data protection act?

organ-grinder

Refer them to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram

elisebutt65

organ-grinder wrote: »

Refer them to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram

RAFLMAO!!!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bravobeastie

organ-grinder wrote: »

Refer them to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram

Class!!!

:rotfl:

Premier_2

organ-grinder wrote: »

Refer them to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram

Great!!!

For those unfamiliar with the case, here's a link:
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm

sarahg1969

Except that they haven't made any defamatory statements. Defamatory statements must be made to a third party, not to the "defamed" person themselves.

As for the DPA??? Section 35 would cover them.

Premier_2

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Except that they haven't made any defamatory statements. Defamatory statements must be made to a third party, not to the "defamed" person themselves...

The response provided was extremely well composed in legal terms and hence why in part, I guess, it became so well renowned.

Not only does the response totally ignore the alleged wrongdoing (so it could equally be used in numerous other responses), but also conveys the initial thoughts of the recipient yet at the same time cleverly expresses it is not the actual considered response to the request for damages/compensation.

sarahg1969

Premier wrote: »

The response provided was extremely well composed in legal terms and hence why in part, I guess, it became so well renowned.

Not only does the response totally ignore the alleged wrongdoing (so it could equally be used in numerous other responses), but also conveys the initial thoughts of the recipient yet at the same time cleverly expresses it is not the actual considered response to the request for damages/compensation.

Excellent! I hadn't actually read the link!!:rotfl:

victoria123_2

Hi
I have read your post re. the letter from JMW solicitors and your listing of the GHDs on ebay. I myself have received a letter from JMW today with pretty much the same content although it seems they have added a paragraph:

'.....lack of knowledge provides no defence to an action for either trade mark infringement or passing off. In any event, we note that our client has previously removed an ebay listing of counterfeit irons that was placed by you. Despite this removal, and you subsequently receiving an automated email from eBay explaining why the irons were removed, you chose to re-list the irons on at least one occasion.

We would strongly advise you seek independent legal advice as to the contents of this letter'.

My scenario is slightly different to yours and I would like advice if possible from anyone who can help, before I contact the solicitiors.

Around feb of this year my partner spotted a pair of the new pink GHDs on ebid. As my gHDs had broken we decided to purchase the pink ones from ebid - it was the first time either of us had used the site and we set an account up with my details. To be honest I did not know whether they were genuine or not when we purchased them - I am not sure how you can. We paid around £60 for them in the hope all would be ok.

They came and looked absolutely genuine - I comared them against my others which were also the new MK4 and the box, CD, booklets etc looked as normal. They also worked just like my others but then suddenly stopped working about 4 months later. I decided to sell them on ebay - I sold my other broken ones and had no problem. I stated they were broken, put on a photo and gave all the relevant details. Then they got removed and I got the automated email from ebay but I decided to re-list them - mainly because as far as I was concerned they were genuine (in hindsight, stupid to relist I know). They had the hologram, serial no. etc which I then stated on the relisting. I sold them for about £30 maybe a bit less - the sale was possibly the day I relisted them. That was it!

Now I have the letter. I am worried as they are asking for £200, implying I am trading counterfeit ghds (they can aparently be classed as counterfeit if Jemella are unaware you are 'supplying' them?).

I have read the other posts and will write back with the truth - my details are limited though as it was a while back.

Does anyone have any suggestions - I am concerned as I sold them and didn't end up giving them away like the other post said.

This was a genuine mistake and am hacked of as I have neither the time nor the money to pursue.

Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!