No one is saying that the seller shouldn't have disclosed permanent markings and stickers on the soles. Look at the responses!! We all agree that the marks should have been disclosed, but lack of disclosure of marks on the sole do NOT constitute damage and do not make the shoes not new.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Soles of shoes are made to be walked on and by virtue of the very use, those marks would disappear upon wearing them the first time as the marks would be rubbed off and replaced by normal scuffing from use.
If those same marks were on the uppers of the shoes, there'd be no discussion that there was damage. But soles are a different story.
And to compare marks on the sole of a shoe to marks on a bag is completely irrelevant. There's no comparison.
Again, when there are permanent marks, labeling, codes, stickers, etc. on the soles, they should (at the very least) be pictured and/or described. No one is arguing that fact. And with disclosure, the buyer can decide whether it's something that's acceptable.
The argument is whether the marks are damage, and I do not consider it to be damage.