Letters from the UCC and my comments
First my usual required disclaimer.
I am not a lawyer, I am not connected with the UCC, and that my statements and/or opinions are correct to the best of my knowledge.Letter ---from Chelsea Bailey Uniform Code Council
Inc. Customer Service
Dated 26 Nov 2003.
"The numbers assigned will continue to direct ownership and identify only the company to which they are assigned. This could potentially cause legal or liability issues for the company who sold the numbers and may cause disruption to you selling your product with someone else's bar code on it. However, we are not responsible for identifying products which contain someone else's bar code and the ramifications of doing so will be handled solely by your trading partners. They will ultimately decide whether your product can be sold and your sales tracked within their individual stores." .
My opinion:
Legal problems that the subset seller might encounter should not concern the purchaser of the subset. If the seller received his prefix prior to the dates specified and has complied with all agreements he signed, there should be no problem. On the rare occasion where the UCC is contacted with regard to a subset number, the seller should simply forward the information to the buyer.Letter ---from Crystal Ingram
Sr. Customer Service Representative
Uniform Code Council
7887 Washington Village Dr., Suite 300
Dayton, OH 45459
Dated March 2005
"Dear Xxxxxx, The UCC is aware that there are companies who are selling off parts of their prefix. Please be aware that these companies do not have our backing. If you choose to use another company's number, it will not identify you. The prefix that is assigned to you by the UCC will only identify your company and you will also have the proper documentation to support this.
If a retailer finds out that the prefix you've been using is not yours, they have the right to fine you thousands of dollars.
To answer your question of how it's possible, I can only say, a company may get away with this for a short period of time, but it's the retailers and manufacturers who enforce the U.P.C. standards. This would not go over in the long run."
My opinion:
If one has been granted the right to use a subset from a company that legitimately owns a prefix purchased before August 2002, he will be OK. I don’t see any reason why any retailer would object, nor would they be interested, in spending money on a law suit that does not affect their business’s bottom line in a positive manner.
Ms. Ingram’s statement, "If a retailer finds out that the prefix you've been using is not yours, they have the right to fine you thousands of dollars", is a veiled threat which can be very intimidating to small businesses and deserves further discussion. What she is saying is, IF one were to simply choose a prefix, or deliberately copy a prefix from an existing product, or use a subset of a prefix bought from a seller who did not own that prefix, that person would be pirating or stealing. She is also saying that should the pirated U.P.C. prefix belong to a company and that company became aware of the theft, the company owning the rights to the prefix could indeed sue for damages. The prefix is treated as an asset of the company who bought the rights to the prefix and the UCC generally leaves it up the the owner of the rights to take whatever step the owning company believes are appropriate. Therefore it behooves one to deal with an honest re-seller as described in READ before you buy. Unfortunately, It may be hard to verify that the seller of the subset has not pirated the prefix. I have not had any luck in obtaining information from the UCC about the owners of specific prefixes. It does not surprise me that the UCC is resorting to threatening statements, after all the U.P.C. is their cash cow.
George J. Laurer
Return to HOME page.
Return to Need only one bar code page.
For contact information please go to my Contact Page.
Revised: March 2005