Authenticate Those SHOES
- Thread starter Swanky
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Sorry. My notifications have been either intermittent or non-existent for this thread. I didn't see it until after @Narnanz contacted me through Dooney and made reference to the authenticator asking about a hologram and I went looking.....
I'll copy the reply I made there:
No, holograms were added several years ago as a way to try to thwart the counterfeiters. I don't know exactly when they were added but older authentic Uggs don't have them.
Also, keep in mind that nothing is safe from being copied. I've also seen fake holograms and fake QR codes.
Now that I'm seeing your pictures of the shoes, I have another theory.
I don't think your mocassins are counterfeit but I believe they're not Decker's Uggs. When Decker's bought the Ugg brand, they trademarked it and prohibited its use by non-Deckers manufacturers.
Notice that your shoes aren't "Ugg Australia." I think your mocs are part of the earlier Uggs from Oz.
There's a back story (searchable on Wikipedia).
UGG (brand) - Wikipedia
Trademark disputes
Main article: Ugg boots trademark disputes
In 1971, Shane Steadman registered the trademark UGH-BOOT on the Australian Trade Mark Registry, and obtained an Australian registration for UGH in 1982. These registrations remained valid in Australia until removed for non-use in 2006. Steadman sold his UGH brand boots widely in Australia throughout the 1970s and 1980s.[34] This registration was subsequently sold to Ugg Holdings Inc. in early 1995. In August 1995, Deckers Brands purchased Ugg Holdings, and in 1999 registered Ugg Holdings trademarks, including the UGG AUSTRALIA label (with sun-like device), in Australia. Attempts by Deckers to stop other traders from using the "UGG" mark in Australia were challenged, ultimately leading to 2006 decisions by IP Australia to remove company's "UGH" and "UGH-BOOTS" trademarks due to non-use, finding that they had not been used during a three-year period ending one month before a removal application was submitted.[35][36] The trademark for the UGG Australia label was maintained, but only applied to its entirety as opposed to the parts within it.[37][38] Nevertheless, Deckers holds registrations for the UGG trademark in the United States, China and over 130 other countries.[39]
The validity of the UGG trademark outside of Australia has also been challenged, but courts have consistently upheld its validity. In 2004, Deckers filed a case against Koolaburra in the California federal court asserting that their use of "Ug" was trademark infringement.[31][13] Koolaburra argued that the UGG trademark was invalid as being generic and obtained by fraud.[31] In February 2005, the court ruled for Deckers stating that survey evidence clearly demonstrates that the UGG mark is not generic. There was no evidence that Smith acted with an intent to defraud the Trademark Office, and consumers would likely be confused with the similarity in "appearance, sight and sound" between "Ug" and "UGG" as the parties were marketing in direct competition with identical products. However, the court declined to rule on the validity of Deckers' Australian trademark registrations in the context of the U.S. case.[31]
Other UGG trademark disputes have occurred with companies including Luda Production Pty[40][41] and Emu Australia,[42][43][44] as well as local manufacturers in countries such as Turkey and China.[39]
In August 2016, the Australian Federal Senator Nick Xenophon called for international protection of the Australian footwear term ugg.[45]
I thank both @audreylita and @BeenBurned for their help and wish to apologize to Audreylita if I have overstepped in asking for help from BeenBurned.Sorry. My notifications have been either intermittent or non-existent for this thread. I didn't see it until after @Narnanz contacted me through Dooney and made reference to the authenticator asking about a hologram and I went looking.....
I'll copy the reply I made there:
No, holograms were added several years ago as a way to try to thwart the counterfeiters. I don't know exactly when they were added but older authentic Uggs don't have them.
Also, keep in mind that nothing is safe from being copied. I've also seen fake holograms and fake QR codes.
Now that I'm seeing your pictures of the shoes, I have another theory.
I don't think your mocassins are counterfeit but I believe they're not Decker's Uggs. When Decker's bought the Ugg brand, they trademarked it and prohibited its use by non-Deckers manufacturers.
Notice that your shoes aren't "Ugg Australia." I think your mocs are part of the earlier Uggs from Oz.
There's a back story (searchable on Wikipedia).
UGG (brand) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Trademark disputes
Main article: Ugg boots trademark disputes
In 1971, Shane Steadman registered the trademark UGH-BOOT on the Australian Trade Mark Registry, and obtained an Australian registration for UGH in 1982. These registrations remained valid in Australia until removed for non-use in 2006. Steadman sold his UGH brand boots widely in Australia throughout the 1970s and 1980s.[34] This registration was subsequently sold to Ugg Holdings Inc. in early 1995. In August 1995, Deckers Brands purchased Ugg Holdings, and in 1999 registered Ugg Holdings trademarks, including the UGG AUSTRALIA label (with sun-like device), in Australia. Attempts by Deckers to stop other traders from using the "UGG" mark in Australia were challenged, ultimately leading to 2006 decisions by IP Australia to remove company's "UGH" and "UGH-BOOTS" trademarks due to non-use, finding that they had not been used during a three-year period ending one month before a removal application was submitted.[35][36] The trademark for the UGG Australia label was maintained, but only applied to its entirety as opposed to the parts within it.[37][38] Nevertheless, Deckers holds registrations for the UGG trademark in the United States, China and over 130 other countries.[39]
The validity of the UGG trademark outside of Australia has also been challenged, but courts have consistently upheld its validity. In 2004, Deckers filed a case against Koolaburra in the California federal court asserting that their use of "Ug" was trademark infringement.[31][13] Koolaburra argued that the UGG trademark was invalid as being generic and obtained by fraud.[31] In February 2005, the court ruled for Deckers stating that survey evidence clearly demonstrates that the UGG mark is not generic. There was no evidence that Smith acted with an intent to defraud the Trademark Office, and consumers would likely be confused with the similarity in "appearance, sight and sound" between "Ug" and "UGG" as the parties were marketing in direct competition with identical products. However, the court declined to rule on the validity of Deckers' Australian trademark registrations in the context of the U.S. case.[31]
Other UGG trademark disputes have occurred with companies including Luda Production Pty[40][41] and Emu Australia,[42][43][44] as well as local manufacturers in countries such as Turkey and China.[39]
In August 2016, the Australian Federal Senator Nick Xenophon called for international protection of the Australian footwear term ugg.[45]
Unfortunately I cant fit them due to swelling of feet but will just use them as a run about slipper when I can.they only set me back NZ$7 so no worries there.
Wow BeenBurned...you know your stuff.
I'm curious. Did you buy the shoes online and were they sold as or implied to be made by Decker? If so, you should be able to file SNAD and be able to return them. Like anything else, sellers are supposed to know items are "as described" and although it's a kind of gray area, I'm not sure they should have been sold as "uggs" since Decker is really a stickler for items sold as their brand.
Thrifted find at the local Hospice shop....just saw the Uggs and thought oh nice.....luckily not much money spent...NZ$7
Hello ladies,
Could you please help me authenticate these Chanel shoes? I contacted authenticate4u but they don’t do footwear any longer.
Thanks in advance.
Could you please help me authenticate these Chanel shoes? I contacted authenticate4u but they don’t do footwear any longer.
Authentic Chanel Beige Black Leather Flats Loafers 37.5 | eBay
Authentic Chanel Flats. Beige with black patent leather on the toes and stripes on the heels. These are used but in good condition. Size is EU 37 1/2.
www.ebay.com
The pictures could be better but they appear to be authentic.Hello ladies,
Could you please help me authenticate these Chanel shoes? I contacted authenticate4u but they don’t do footwear any longer.
Thanks in advance.Authentic Chanel Beige Black Leather Flats Loafers 37.5 | eBay
Authentic Chanel Flats. Beige with black patent leather on the toes and stripes on the heels. These are used but in good condition. Size is EU 37 1/2.www.ebay.com
Hello, first time posting here for shoe assistance, I wish I had known about this brilliant thread before, but I probably don’t want to know about some things now!! Just purchased these from the TRR. Any thoughts?https://www.therealreal.com/product...rystal-embellishments-flats-8ey3t?position=92
Attachments
Hello Authenticators. could you please authenticate this Manolo Hangisi? Thanks!
Attachments
-
F74E25E4-DF8E-4AE4-9D6B-53729638FD6E.jpeg -
9FF5CA04-E615-4850-BD23-7DA649073619.jpeg -
1C29E3B1-C748-4A06-8E27-7D04B15B2AAE.jpeg -
E8C8A834-9F9F-4A98-B6C7-491A1D427D96.jpeg -
094B9262-1911-4A31-9DC9-EE5AE0D4F3EF.jpeg -
CB3B8399-76CA-43A6-8CBE-1F2E7C6C19D4.jpeg -
6E62F191-D42A-404E-9E0B-3C27DD790C78.jpeg -
E682837B-B93D-4965-8D03-CBE1E9FDA473.jpeg
hello authenticators! what do you think of these chanel slingbacks? thank you in advance!
Item: Authentic Chanel Beige/Black Two Tone Leather Cap Toe Slingbacks Size 39
Listing number: 143958340019
Seller: 435met88
Link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/143958340019
Item: Authentic Chanel Beige/Black Two Tone Leather Cap Toe Slingbacks Size 39
Listing number: 143958340019
Seller: 435met88
Link: https://www.ebay.com/itm/143958340019
