European Court Votes For Higher Prices

[Provost Harrison]

Totally different matter Infatuation, these are second hand goods you are talking about and have an element of risk in buying them, hence the greatly reduced price. With a new item, the same does not apply, it should be in A1 condition.

[Gary]

If retailers can do whatever they want, how do you get around the provision of service problem in the train set example?

IIRC you yourself admitted that toys and clothing were not exactly the same thing, but I think the same argument still applies to both though.

First option is to have the "high service" stores accept a percentage loss of their time to customers who obtain information etc. but who do not actually buy, and apply that figure to their profit / loss account (or whatever, it's been a while since I looked at these things) to see if the high service / high price option is actually a viable one. If it is, then no problem, if it isn't then fine, the customer has used their influence to indicate that their preference is for affordable prices. I understand that, that is how you are supposed to operate within the market.

Basically you don't try to force the market to allow you to achieve what you want to achieve, you look at the market and only operate where a genuine business opportunity exists.

The second option, which is more or an option for the manufacturers than the retailers (and thus more applicable to our jeans example than your trains) is for the manufacturer to set up agreements with the retailers they sell too. If they are concerned about image, then they should not try to make an extra quick buck by selling the same thing cheaper via another channel. Do that and they deserve the inevitable result.

Going back to jeans rather than train sets. Sure Tesco may have some scale advantages, but this does not appear to be the significant factor when we compare UK prices to US prices, rather than specialist shop to large chain.

Besides if people are still interested in service then let them cover the costs of providing it. If £50 is added to the bill to cover the "time wasters" then surely if you want the service you'd love to pay the extra £50 for the fawning sales person whom you can't get away from, because, for you, it would be worth it. If not, then there is no opportunity for the retailer to operate in that manner.

EiF ... you are not given permission to agree with me, mostly or otherwise. You're a right wing Tory voter and thus persona non grata

[*End Is Forever*]

LOL Gary... actually I'm a centrist Tory member.

And I'm still agreeing with you.

[TCO]

Testify, brotha!!

Gary, you and I are on the same wavelength.

[Colon™]

Iain, the implications of the verdict go far beyond the firms involved in the trial and besides, the brand and the firm Levi Strauss are in an advanced state of decay anyway. Italy and France have a lot of luxury good manufacturers that own valuable and exclusive brands and the verdict is beneficial to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree totally with Gary and GP here.

If Levi's sold its jeans without a 'no reselling' order in the contract, then they are SOL. If the retailers decide to resell it, that is their own business if the contract doesn't say they can't do it. And the second retailer should be able to charge whatever price it desires.

In a certain way, I'm reminded of computer game prices. Today, I was home, and went to the mall. At Electronics Boutique, Europa Universalis II was $45. At Babbages, it was $40. Babbages decided to sell it for less for their own reasons. They bought the game, and decided to charge a lower price than its competitor.

Shouldn't Tesco be able to sell the jeans at a lower price?

[*End Is Forever*]

Thanks Colon, that's what I wanted to know.

Hopefully Imran won't get quite so offended when I say I agree with him too.

[TCO]

What about me, Iaiaiaian? You gonna include me in the buddy club?

[*End Is Forever*]

What's up, George? Jealous are we...?

"D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

[TCO]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
What's up, George? Jealous are we...?

"D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

You sound like one of those English gutter children from To Sir with Love. Don't make me get all Sidney Poitnier on your ass.

[Roland]

GP:

"Why? What's the connection? We're talking about resale of goods they made themselves. From a country where their trademark is honored."

Depending on the trade mark law, enforcement issues, vertical restraints issues etc they may want to chose different schemes for different areas. I don't really take sides on the issue, but I can see the arguments for both sides...

"But the point of this case was that the EU court said that their was no need for Levi's to have any restrictions on sales... It's as if they didn't fully own them REGARDLESS OF WHETHER RESALE RESTRICTIONS WERE STIPULATED OR AGREED TO."

As I said before, they don't own the trademark. That's the entire point of having a trademark. For grey imports into the EU, they'd need Levi's consent.

Iain:

". I was just wondering what would prompt the French and Italian governments to support Levis... do they have big factories there or something?"

AFAIK it's also (apart from luxury goods business) a legal tradition issue. UK had international, many continental countries domestic exhaustion.

Imran:

"If Levi's sold its jeans without a 'no reselling' order in the contract, then they are SOL."

IIRC (and I can't be arsed to read the case again) Levi's sold with such a clause to the purchaser in Singapore or whereever ?

Also, domestic exhaustion was well established for the EU, so at least in that regard, it wasn't really needed.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, Imran is right ( I agree with him). Isn't it amazing are so often to espouse the virtues of capitalism when it suits them, but are still willing to utilise decidedly uncompetitive practices in this manner to artificially elevate prices.

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
"D'yer wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang?"

Gary Glitter lyrics are definitely a no-go area now I am afraid Iain, unless you want to be called a nonce

[Roland]

Considering that you have reduced the issue to "cheaper jeans - yes or no ", I dont find it too surprising that this issue makes for strange agreements...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
GP:

As I said before, they don't own the trademark. That's the entire point of having a trademark. For grey imports into the EU, they'd need Levi's consent.

IIRC (and I can't be arsed to read the case again) Levi's sold with such a clause to the purchaser in Singapore or whereever ?

Roland,

Of course they don't own the trademark. Thye own the goods that have the trademark on them. If there is some special reservation of ownership rights attached to the trademark, why doesn't this apply internally (within the EU/UK)?

The ruling said that resale stipulations were irrelevant. I.e. even if NONE were agreed to, the trademark owner can STILL prevent resale. (I read that ruling.) The ruling said it was therefore irrlelevant for them to rule on whether there were valid resale restirictions. Anyways, (as you admitted) those restrictions would only bind the Singapore signer...not subsequent buyers. (AND on a practical note, Levi's can stop selling to shadey Singapore dealers...who grey their goods.)

[Roland]

"If there is some special reservation of ownership rights attached to the trademark, why doesn't this apply internally (within the EU/UK)?"

Cause they could then price discriminate within one regulatory system. Btw, this point is a matter of legislation, not of case law.

"The ruling said that resale stipulations were irrelevant. I.e. even if NONE were agreed to, the trademark owner can STILL prevent resale. (I read that ruling.)"

They are not irrelevant. The issue was happens in the absence of explicit agreements, and the court held that consent is reqzured, and it was quite restrictive on what to see as an implied consent.

"... those restrictions would only bind the Singapore signer...not subsequent buyers."

As a matter of fact you could break that "chain". As a matter of law that's not so clear. It's a bit like buying from a thief... and wheter you own the goods bought.