Talk:Ugg boots

RfC for Ugg boots

I am requesting comment from the Wikipedia community on how to proceed. I suggest that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT (and, therefore, WP:NPOV) to cite a newspaper article strongly biased in favor of Australian manufacturers 11 times in the mainspace, while excluding or minimizing content based on several other reliable sources that are more neutral. We have a unique legal question regarding intellectual property law: whether a generic term, used to overturn established trademarks in one or two countries, can not only have its own WP article but exclude material about trademark disputes and counterfeiting in other countries, where the generic term itself has been unsuccessfully used as a defense by trademark infringers and counterfeiters. The motive appears to be removal of material that is inconvenient for Australian manufacturers.

I have compared the Budweiser series of articles. The term "Budweiser" referred to someone or something that came from Budweis, a city that was then German (now part of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice). Like "ugg boots," the generic term existed long before the brand had been registered as a trademark by Anheuser-Busch. Over half of that article is devoted to trademark disputes. Yes, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), as well as Anheuser-Busch, are separate articles and there's a disambiguation hatnote at Budweiser. But this is a precedent that should be used to guide us in shaping this article. Regarding the lede, when a brand of boot goes from $14.5 million a year in 1995 to $100 million a year in 2004, that is very noteworthy. It belongs in the lede and it doesn't take up a lot of space. The federal judge's description of this growth as "exponential" is colorful language not normally used by a judge; I think that should be used in the lede as well.

There's a large number of neutral reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Australians take up the first 2/3 of this article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] There are also abundant decisions in arbitration.Australian Aura[10][11][12][13][14][15] In "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear.

I am also concerned about the possible WP:COI of the many Australian and New Zealander editors here and at Deckers Outdoor Corporation. One of them, an Australian WP administrator, has admitted direct contact with the lead Australian manufacturer in litigation to cancel the "UGG" trademark in an Australian court decision. This admin contacted the company directly, entered the factory, took photographs of their products and production facilities, and put them into this article. The possibility that one or more of these editors is a paid marketing employee of one (or more) of the Australian manufacturers cannot be ignored. Their actions, in contacting the manufacturers and editing this mainspace, speak louder than words on this Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is doing at the top of the discussion page; but that little matter aside, it's been less than a month since the last RfC on uggs. -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That one wasn't posted at the RfC noticeboards, nor did it have the RfC tag at the top of this page. Technically, it was just a third opinion from K10wnsta. RfC rules require that it must be placed at the top of the page. Let's proceed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I see what you mean. That RfC was closed after less than 24 hours by Gnangarra, the admin who initiated contact with the Australian manufacturer. RfC rules require that it must stay in place for 30 days. Since that one lasted less than 24 hours (17 to be exact), I propose that this one should be limited to 29 days. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, for editors new to this article, that one of the counterfeiters was an Australian manufacturer. [16] They copied the UGG logo, the brochure, and even the packaging. They're dishonest. I suggest that their dishonesty, in addition to their corporate marketing efforts, may be percolating onto this page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, look what I just found! Gnangarra has been quietly deleting every WP article about Deckers product lines (Ugg Australia, Teva sandals, Simple Shoes) and redirecting them to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article.[17] And at the same time, Bilby has been removing material from the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, in effect making it the way that the Aussies want Ugg boots to look: lots of material that helps Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments, and less material that Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments might find inconvenient.[18] And look, what a surprise! Both Gnangarra and Bilby are Australians. Fancy that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Who bloody cares where they are from, being Australian has nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia. Stop using the RfC to launch attacks at editors since you are talking about the editor and not the contributions. Also allegations of paid editing doesn't help since you have no proof to prove it as fact. Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagine a world where the only automobile manufacturers were Saab Automobile and the Detroit Three, with Saab being by far the largest. Imagine a small group of six WP editors, led by an admin, who are editing both automobile and Saab Automobile articles to make them more favorable to the Detroit Three, and less favorable to Saab. Would it matter to you if all six of them were from Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding area? Is it just a coincidence? How can you be sure of that? Particularly when the admin admits that he contacted General Motors, asked to be let into their factory, took photos of their products and production facilities, and added them to the article about automobiles? And furthermore, one of the Detroit Three (not sure which one) demonstrated its enormous dishonesty by flooding the market in the Netherlands with fake Saab Automobiles built in Detroit?

By the way, Bidgee, these same editors have been very aggressive in their attacks against editors who don't go along with their plans for these articles: claims that we're sockpuppets, or that we have COIs of our own, or that we're making legal threats, or that we're defining all Australian ugg boots marketed in Australia as counterfeit. So let's all stop launching attacks at editors, shall we? And let's address the quality of the edits, and the obvious violation of WP:WEIGHT these edits have created. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

P&W: ... one of the counterfeiters was an Australian manufacturer. [19] They copied the UGG logo, the brochure, and even the packaging. They're dishonest. They are indeed. (Or anyway, they were. I've no idea where they are now.) P&W: I suggest that their dishonesty, in addition to their corporate marketing efforts, may be percolating onto this page. I suggest that these aren't. I don't think that anybody here has been defending the "rights" of any outfit other than Deckers to copy and make money off what's specific to Deckers (e.g. its logo, brochure, or packaging). ¶ Meanwhile, if one editor lives near a manufacturer of uggs and gets the permission of that manufacturer to take photos of the manufacturing process and to add them to the article, all to the good. (What's odd to me is the contrast between the great size of the original images, suggesting an expensive camera, and their obvious lack of a few seconds' worth of work in Gimp or similar. I'd do the latter myself, if the file sizes weren't so big as to cause Gimp on my humble netbook -- just one piddling GB of RAM -- to freeze. Another day, on a bigger computer.) ¶ Now, there may be something amiss in Gnangarra's set of edits across a number of related articles (I don't know because I haven't investigated), but the claim that he has been quietly deleting every WP article about Deckers product lines (Ugg Australia, Teva sandals, Simple Shoes) and redirecting them to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article (my emphasis) is bizarre: he openly proposed redirecting them there almost three months ago. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ON the photographs I take them for a living hence the camera and my lack of need in editing afterwards, I have contributed 1000+ images to Wikipedia all freely licensed. The redirects were done after Uggs Australia was deleted and redirected as a POV fork with no merge taking place, if I had any hidden agenda I wouldnt have bothered with recovering the information in that article, nor would I have left redirects and fixed double redirects. Gnangarra 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If what P&W says is true regarding overweight on certain sources and not using more neutral sources, I agree with him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with P&W's account is that it appears biased in the other direction. Those sources are in part used because, when the trademark issues arose in Australia, naturally the Australian press covered the issue in depth. As a result a lot of articles emerged looking at the history of the style. So when looking for articles on the history, those were the ones giving the best coverage. Second, there is a number of sources in the articles specifically about Deckers boots. These include proceedings from two court cases that found for Deckers, and, I think, at least nine pro-Deckers articles in the references. Overall, the article mentions specific Australian manufacturers - in name only - three times in the entire article, with the bulk of the article being either about ugg boots in general or Deckers in specific, including with Deckers mentioned in the lead, a whole section devoted to counterfeit Deckers boots, (although I think that should be in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, where it is repeated) and a paragraph in history specifically about Deckers.

The problem is that there are a style of shoes, known as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand, that have considerable significance in those countries and are made by a large number of manufacturers. There is also a specific brand of those boots, made by Deckers, that are sold and widely known outside of Australia and New Zealand called UGGs as a trademarked term, that emerged possibly decades after the boots were manufactured in Australia by other companies under the ugg name. This article currently discusses the history, the trademark disputes, the rise of Deckers and the appearance of counterfeit Deckers boots. Add to that the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, to which P&W added large chunks from this one, and Wikipedia has an awful lot of coverage about Deckers already. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You're discussing the article as it is now. Consider how some editors have advocated changing it: removing everything about the counterfeiting, and nearly everything about trademark disputes. The Budweiser series of articles should be guiding us concerning content. K10wnsta mentioned some minor distinctions between this set of facts and that one, but they are distinctions without any real, substantive difference. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the RfC is about, then. Is it to say that the article is currently balanced, but you want an RfC to say that it should stay that way, or that it should be more on Deckers, or what is the aim?

In regard to Budweiser, it isn't really equivalent, as we're talking here about a generic term in the country of origin, while the Budweiser article makes it clear that Budweiser is not a generic term. But If you do want to compare the two, the Budweiser starts by covering history and background, and then mentions the three companies. After that it has a general discussion about the trademark dispute. This article covers history and background, (more than Budweiser), and covers the trademark dispute, then has a big section about counterfeiting one brand. I can't see a major difference, except that this article gives much more time to Deckers, and has more specific discussion related to only one brand, than Budweiser gives to the US company. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I laid it out well in the RfC OP (original post). The lede is a critical component of any article. By the end of the article, we will lose 50-95% of readers (in my experience), and the way to keep them reading is to make the lede interesting. It doesn't need to read like a WP:DYK hook, but it shouldn't be dry, dusty and boring, either. The lede needs the "before and after" sales figures for the UGG brand to show the explosive growth in popularity of ugg boots (generic term) over the past 15 years. If you'd like, I'll try to find more current sales figures. You are encouraged to find similar figures for any Australian companies that publish them, because this isn't a Deckers article; it's about all ugg boots manufacturers, but Deckers happens to be the largest.

The lede also needs the quote from the judge about "exponential" growth. This is an interesting choice of words. Again, if you can find something similar about some Australian manufacturer, let's consider it. For guidance on how to write a lede, I've always listened to the professionals at the Columbia School of Journalism, home of Columbia Journalism Review:[20]

The effective story lead meets two requirements. It captures the essence of the event, and it cajoles the reader or listener into staying awhile.

• "We slept last night in the enemy's camp." — By a correspondent for the Memphis Daily Appeal, after the first day of the Civil War Battle of Shiloh.

I'm not saying we should take any guidance from the "rule breakers" section, but that webpage contains a lot of great learning for WP editors. Writing the lede correctly is 90% of the real creative work in writing an article. It announces what is important or notable. And in Ugg boots, what's important and notable is the phenomonal growth in popularity of this boot style, and the many disputes that this fashion equivalent of the California Gold Rush has triggered.

The RfC should also address the desire by some editors to disembowel or completely eliminate the "Trademark dispute" section and the "Counterfeit products" section. Wherever the generic term has been used as a defense by counterfeiters and trademark infringers, it should be in this article -- whether the defense was successful (in Australia) or unsuccessful (just about everywhere else it's been tried). Again, if there are any incidents of counterfeiting that target an Australian brand such as Uggs-N-Rugs, let's consider them. My initial reaction would be to include them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If I am following things properly, it seems there should be give and take on both sides of this issue. Perhaps it might be worth everyone trying to see things from each others viewpoint then acting accordingly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the counterfeiting and the sales figures are not an issue for ugg boots, but for Deckers, and you have already placed the counterfeiting in that article as well as in here. It doesn't need to be in two places, any more than the trademark dispute needs to be in two places. If we use your Budweiser article as an example, issues specific to one brand should go in that brand's article, and issues that affect multiple brands, or ugg boots in general, such as the trademark dispute, should go in the general article. I have no problem with expanding the trademark section, but to be honest it feels ok as is. But I do have a problem with putting content in one article when the best place for it would be another. Note that I would say the same about Uggs-N-Rugs, should someone want to add their sales figures, or if any other issue specific to them was to arise. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally Bilby, I might agree with you. But in these particular court cases, the generic term was used as a defense — usually without any success. This article is all about the generic term. If any mention at all is made of the case in Australia (where the generic term defense was a success), then we also have to talk about all the other cases (where the generic term defense failed). We have to take the "bad" with the "good," from an Uggs-N-Rugs marketing perspective. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion? I have no problem at all with covering the trademark dispute. By its very nature, that is an issue for all ugg boot manufacturers, fits well within this as a general article, and matches what was done at Budweiser. If there is more to cover on this I'm very happy to see it added. But company-specific issues are better handled on the company-specific pages. Counterfeiting Deckers boots and sales figures are company specific, trademarks are a general issue, both when Deckers won and when they didn't. There might be issues about weight, but that's a different concern and doesn't relate to the validity of covering the trademark debate here. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added your username to your comment, Bilby, hope you don't mind. I think we might actually be on the same page, and I'm most relieved to see that. What really concerns me is the possible removal of the Dutch decision. It could fairly be described as a counterfeiting case, but the defendant (La Cheapa) used the generic term defense, so it most definitely belongs here. The Glasgow case should also be mentioned here in significant detail with quotes, since those counterfeits were made out of fake fur; so they weren't just counterfeit UGG boots (brand name), they were also counterfeit ugg boots (generic term). I hadn't planned on introducing any other counterfeiting cases here, since the ones I've found have nothing to do with ugg boots (generic term). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions ugg boots made out of material other than sheepskin. The article is entirely about Deckers - I really think it is a bit of a stretch to say that it refers to counterfeit ugg boots just because it mentions that some were made of synthetic fur. Can you even counterfeit a style of clothing, as opposed to a brand? How about we take the counterfeit out of here and leave it in the Deckers article, and take the trademark discussion out of Deckers and leave it here? - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, any counterfeiting cases that involved the use of the generic term as a defense belong here, because this is an article about the generic term. Also, in the "Design" section we see, "Some variations of ugg style boots have also been made from kangaroo fur and leather ... Although derided as 'fake' by some in the industry,[17] ..." Source #17 is the Australian Sheepskin Association, Bilby, not the Deckers marketing department. If "some in the industry," among them the leading organization of sheepskin producers in Australia, believe them to be fake ugg boots, then it's at the very least a significant minority opinion that must receive due weight per WP:WEIGHT. And any counterfeiting case involving boots made out of fake fur therefore belongs here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the question of fake ugg boots is already covered in the article, so it has due weight. If you want, I don't see a problem with adding a line stating that the generic ugg boot defence was used in a counterfeiting case, but the reality is that the vast bulk of the counterfeit section is very much about Deckers boots, and has little relevance, as written, to ugg boots in general. It may also be viable to expand it in the future, but as there are no sources that I'm aware of covering counterfeiting other articles, placing it in Deckers would allow it to grow in that manner while retaining that article's focus. Thus, logically, I think it belongs in the Deckers article, where it can already be found as you duplicated the content there. Anyway, I'll leave it for a bit to see what others think. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Popping on after a bit of a vacation. I also see no point in having the counterfeiting portion in here; this is an article about the generic style, it really has no place here. Perhaps in the brand-specific article, where I think it's already mentioned. — e. ripley\^talk 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved trademark disputes info out of header (article is 'Ugg boots') and into Trademark disputes section.teinesaVaii (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OT diversion II

I utterly reject the false accusation of conflict of interest within this RfC and would encourage User:Phoenix and Winslow to apologise for and withdraw same. Not that it is really anybody's business here, but I have no relationship of any sort with any manufacturer of ugg boots, and the last pair of ugg boots I ever owned disintegrated (from old age) approximately two decades before Deckers made their first ever ugg boot. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Nobody apologizes on this page for making accusations, even false ones.[21]

(2) I didn't make any accusations. I just observed that a COI on the part of some Aussie/NZ editors here is possible. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterfeit boots

I'm wondering if the stuff on counterfeits should be here or at Deckers Outdoor Corporation. My concern is that the material is directed towards one type of ugg boot, while the article is about ugg boots in general, and I can't tell from the sources if by counterfeit what is being referred to is fake UGG Australia boots or generic ugg boots not otherwise claiming to be from Deckers. (I presume the former, but not making that distinction clearly makes me uncomfortable). At any rate, counterfeits do seem to be more of a concern for Deckers that ugg boots in general. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I'd been thinking the same thing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed this section. It would be in the interests of those trying to protect sales of a brand to get information out there about counterfeiting but is not Wikipedia's responsibility. Donama (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the trademark dispute is here, the information about counterfeit products should also be here. If we choose to remove the information about counterfeit products to Deckers Outdoor Corporation, then the material about the trademark dispute should also be removed to Deckers Outdoor Corporation. The two sections go together like ham and eggs. So with all due respect, I've restored the revert. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because people wanting to read about a kind of boot will be interested to hear that its name is trademarked but won't benefit from reading that this particular brand of ugg is faked. And it's doubtful that the counterfeiting stuff is needed anywhere: branded goods are routinely counterfeited, yet articles on these brands rarely go into this, certainly not with a lengthy extract from a newspaper article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember Hoary, there are people out there who are very brand conscious. (I was married to one of them for a few years and while I still love her dearly, I don't miss the credit card bills.) Designer labels are prestigious to them. They're very proud of their genuine Louis Vuitton and Prada handbags, their genuine Gucci and Jimmy Choo shoes, and their genuine UGG boots. According to the article in the Glasgow Evening Times, UGG boots are one of the most frequently counterfeited brands. So I think this section would be of some interest to them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be of interest, my concern is where it is best placed. The trademark dispute relates to ugg boots in general, as it is about the Deckers vs ugg boot manufacturers, so it encompasses both. However, counterfeit Deckers boots are inherently about Deckers only - it is an issue that relates to that company, rather than anything broader. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, in Australia at least there are no such thing as counterfeit ugg boots although there might be counterfeit UGG brand boots. And regardless of this I don't see why Wikipedia is supposed to cater for brand-conscious readers. Wikipedia was established with an aim to provide neutral encyclopaedic information, not serve commercial interests. I still say the section on counterfeits does not belong here and should be removed. Donama (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Oh and note that this has been discussed at least twice before. See: Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 1#Possible Counterfeiting Section. Donama (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Brand consciousness is endemic; I suppose that WP should cater for these people too. But although it caters for creationists, birthers, teabaggers and other simple souls, it doesn't pander to them. Perhaps a brief mention of the significance of counterfeiting is in order, somewhere. However, the article is about uggs, whether labeled "EMU", "UGG", or (tastefully) nothing at all; and "counterfeit uggs" is a nonsense, akin to "counterfeit wellies", "counterfeit sandals", or indeed "counterfeit boots". And yes, it's been discussed already. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I gently remind you that Australia is not the entire world. In the very large part of the world that's not Australia, UGG is a registered trademark, and there is such a thing as counterfeit UGGs. Wikipedia serves all the world, including the large number of people who can read English, but don't live in Australia. I wouldn't rank the brand conscious shopper on the same evolutionary level as the Neanderthals you've mentioned, either. To the extent that the word "ugg" is treated as a generic term for nearly all of the first 1,000 words of the article, and then the first portion of the "Trademark dispute" section describes in detail how the mighty American Goliath was slain by the Australian David, it serves the commercial interests of Uggs-N-Rugs. An article can present the whole truth and, at the same time, it may coincidentally serve the interests of one corporation or the other. The sky will not fall. Yes, it's been discussed already, but now we have two new reliable sources on the counterfeiting: the Glasgow Evening Times and The New York Times. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm not against including this content, although it may seem that way. I just think that as it is brand-specific, the content would be best served in the article about Deckers, as it is about counterfeiting a particular brand. It's not about keeping this article specific to a region, just that I would not expect to see infomation about counterfeit Rolexs in the watch article, but would (and do) see information about them in Rolex. (Noting that the Rolex coverage should really be expanded). In the same sense, I wouldn't expect to see information about counterfeit Deckers boots in the generic ugg boot article, but would expect that information to be in the Deckers one. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

..."counterfeit uggs" is a nonsense, akin to "counterfeit wellies", "counterfeit sandals", or indeed "counterfeit boots" - No, it's not nonsense. It's just like counterfeit leather or counterfeit fur. Many dodgy operators would be passing their wares off as "ugg boots" despite having no sheepskin. (Huey45 (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

You're confusing counterfeiting a brand with counterfeiting a material. Up to this point the discussion has been about sheepskin boots pretending to be genuine UGG. Donama (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem, at its simplest, is that this is an article about a generic Australian style of sheepskin boot, the ugg boot. You are just the last in a stream of Americans who want this article to be about a specific brand of ugg boot, UGG by Deckers. Instead of trying to shoehorn information about the latter into this article, which is about the former, why don't you begin a new article for the latter and hatnote this article? Remember that, as Australia is not the entire world, neither is America; and that ugg boots originated in Australia, where they are a generic style of sheepskin boot. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break A

Donama, why can't the article mention the counterfeiting of a material? If it's not really sheepskin then they're not proper Ugg boots. I imagine that fake sheepskin would be rife, just like counterfeit fur. Pretty much every time you see fur these days, it's completely fake. It's outrageous. (Huey45 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Remember that, as Australia is not the entire world, neither is America. It isn't just America, Dave. It's the rest of the world outside Australia. Six billion people. It seems to me that removing the "Counterfeit products" section would serve the commercial interests of Uggs-N-Rugs, by stressing (in its absence) the triumph of Australian manufacturers over Deckers in Australian trademark court. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't violate WP:WEIGHT. The article in the Glasgow Evening Times states that the counterfeits are being made out of fake, man-made fur. So they aren't just counterfeit UGGs (brand name), they're also counterfeit uggs (generic term). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to non-sheepskin ugg boots, that's already covered in the design section. This isn't a counterfeiting issue, but a question as to whether or not the style is inherently based on sheepskin. However, the content being added is clearly about counterfeit Deckers boots, hence my concern that this is the wrong article, as that continues to be an issue for the brand rather than the style. - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• If an Ugg boot is made of sheep skin then it isnt counterfeit, that is what this article is about if the article was to be bias towards Australia then a counterfeit Ugg boot would be ones made in China by multinational companies. What P&W is saying is that a counterfeit UGG boot is one that isnt made by Deckers, to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit violates WP:NPOV any coverage of conterfeit boots should be about the materials only in this article with Decker specific issues in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article. The Ugg Boots article without the trademark dispute about the use of "ugg" would not be notable as such there are no WP:WEIGHT problems. Gnangarra 22:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

... to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit violates WP:NPOV ... Please indicate where I have made such an outrageous claim, Gnangarra. Anywhere. In mainspace or on this Talk page. Thanks.

When someone outside of Australia looks up "UGG boots" on Wikipedia, it's likely they're looking for the brand. Sorry guys, but now that all the Australian manufacturers have won their battle against the trademark in Australia, they've got about 165 other countries where the trademark is still valid. Everyone can be accommodated by having both "Ugg boots" (the generic term) and "UGG boots" (the brand) covered in a single article. The brand is noteworthy enough to have its own article, but then we'd also need a disambiguation page. Read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a battleground. After fighting and losing the same battle in both American and Dutch courts, ask yourselves: are you bringing the battle here. The two terms (generic and brand name) are identical and will have to coexist in the same Wikipedia article ... because the law forces them to coexist in the marketplace and in the public consciousness. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And in how many of those alleged 165 countries would you even find an ugg boot, of either description? Not many, I wouldn't think. But it is precisely in order to prevent this article being a battleground that I have suggested that you leave this article to the generic ugg boots and take your Deckers boots to their own article, so that the two may coexist on Wikipedia. Note that it is not necessary to create a disambiguation page for two similarly named articles - hatnotes are sufficient; see WP:SIMILAR. Also please note, as I said before but you seem to have missed, that ugg boots originate in Australia, where they are generic. That a company has managed to trademark the name in countries where ugg boots are practically unknown doesn't change that fact. Lastly, upon reflection, you may find your comments about fighting battles and being "forced" to accept large amounts of undue weight to Deckers' boots to be slightly ill-considered. Please familiarise yourself with WP:NLT. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, please indicate where I have made a legal threat, Dave. Anywhere. In mainspace or on this Talk page. Thanks.

I anticipate that you'll be about as successful as Gnangarra has been, in finding any alleged claim of mine that "define[s] the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit[.]" I respectfully suggest that both of you read WP:TPNO: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." I'd really appreciate it if the two of you would stop misrepresenting what I've said. Thanks.

Creating a separate article for "UGG boots" wouldn't just be a "similarly named article." It would be precisely identical except for the capitalization, and it would require a disambiguation page. Yes, I'm abundantly aware that ugg boots originated in either Australia or New Zealand. Yes, I am also aware that in those two countries, it's a generic term. You need to become aware that in the rest of the world, it's a brand name. The article should cover both, rather than being turned into an advertising vehicle for Australian manufacturers. And it does cover both, remarkably well and fairly to both Deckers and the Australians, Dave. As the reliable source states, counterfeit products harm all legitimate manufacturers in the market. If a pair of UGG boots sells for $145, a pair of Uggs-N-Rugs boots sells for $135, and a kiosk on the sidewalk in front of the store sells counterfeits for $95, who loses? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Resp:firstly I have a life, that means that I dont spend every day on Wikipedia waiting for you to comment I'll respond if your comment warrants a response but that wont be immediately after you've posted. My comment in context is that your definition of Counterfeit boot "is one that isnt made by Deckers" your post about counterfeit boots is about Deckers definitions of Ugg Boots there was no reference to materials used. Hence my comment about what Deckers/Your POV is that Deckers is the only legitimate manufacturer Gnangarra 01:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the edit you're complaining about in its entirety, Gnangarra:

Deckers has also been challenged by the marketing of counterfeit products, principally from China. Leah Evert-Burks, director of brand protection for Deckers, told The New York Times: "The consumer is blind as to the source of the product ... Counterfeit Web sites go up pretty easily, and counterfeiters will copy our stock photos, the text of our Web site, so it will look and feel like" the Deckers website. In 2009, customs agents confiscated 60,000 pairs of fake Ugg boots, and the company took action against 2500 websites that were selling fraudulent products, as well as some 170,000 listings on eBay, Craigslist and similar sites.

Please indicate where, in this paragraph, I have stated that "to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit" or that my "definition of Counterfeit boot "is one that isnt made by Deckers" " Thanks. Neither statement would accurately represent what I've said with my edits, on either this Talk page or in mainspace. Your continued misrepresentation of my statements, after I've cited and linked WP:TPNO, is disappointing. I present what the reliable sources say. They say that Deckers is faced by a serious problem with counterfeit products. These sources are The New York Times and Glasgow Evening Times of Scotland, and they are nothing if not reliable. This issue does not exist in America alone. I have never suggested that any of the Australian made ugg (generic term) boots are counterfeits. The principal source of the counterfeits is clearly identified as China, not Australia. In fact, Australia is never mentioned or even implied as a source of counterfeits. Australia isn't even mentioned at all, anywhere in the paragraph you cite (or in what I later added to the section from the Glasgow Evening Times, which did contain a "reference to materials used," Gnangarra). Please withdraw this accusation. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I now notice that another editor, Donama, has added material to this section that mentions Australia for the first time in this section. I have now edited that material to exactly represent what the reliable source says. This is the first time that Australia has been mentioned at all in the "Counterfeit products" section, it's just been added today by another editor, and it clearly distinguishes Australia as a non-counterfeiting market. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a place for companies to establish their brand image or trademark rights. Who owns what rights where is of great financial importance to a few, but is inconsequential at Wikipedia unless reliable secondary sources say otherwise. The sources I am talking about would not simply repeat a press release or fill space with today's story; they would write an article focusing on the issue of trademarks and this product, and explain the significance. There is already too much detail about trademarks and counterfeits in the article and on this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, should we remove the entire "Trademark dispute" section and the entire "Counterfeit products" section? If not, then we need to present all the facts fairly, and in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One of the most important is WP:WEIGHT. Another is WP:NPOV. We can't raise the subject of a particular trademark dispute in Australia, you see, without fully and fairly discussing the trademark itself and its other disputes around the world. Counterfeiting creates a dispute revolving around the trademark. We can't focus the article strictly on what's happened in Australia, discussing it at length while excluding much of what's going on in the rest of the world. The relevant events must be reported in Australia, proportionately with what's going on in the rest of the world. They must be reported in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. The Independent, for example, is relied upon throughout the article. Why not Glasgow Evening Times and the 7/31/2010 New York Times as well?

These are not "press release[s]" but the reliable secondary sources you expect, John. These sources are being referenced already in the disputed mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there is all this interest in a brand of boots? Sure, mention the trademark and counterfeit issues, giving them the amount of importance that people in the real world would give them (without the marketing slant that a company would want). It certainly is not within the scope of Wikipedia "to present all the facts fairly", which sounds very much like soapboxing. Of course we follow WP:NPOV, and we are not going to list imagined benefits of counterfeits, but we also follow WP:DUE and you can visit a market in almost any city and find counterfeit running shoes, handbags, perfumes, medicines, software, DVDs, and lots more. That is, the counterfeiting of Ugg boots is important to a company, but is not important in an encyclopedia. See Rolex#Counterfeits where a single line is devoted to counterfeiting; three or four lines might be reasonable here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq: Why is there is all this interest in a brand of boots? ¶ Phoenix and Winslow (some way above): Deckers has spent $7 million promoting the UGG brand, a fact mentioned in our reliable sources that has not found its way into the article mainspace. ¶ Perhaps it has indeed found its way there: Deckers may regard the Wikipedia article on uggs to be too important to be left to the normal processes of Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Or conversely, Australia's Ugg Boot Footwear Association (led by Uggs-N-Rugs and Mortels Sheepskin Factory) "may regard the Wikipedia article on uggs to be too important to be left to the normal processes of Wikipedia," and thus their own marketing budgets may have found their way to this page. After all, I count four or five Aussies and one Kiwi, but only one Yank. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed possible. But do we have any evidence that they've spent even one measly million promoting the ugg non-brand? -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would such costs be necessary, since they can piggyback on the millions spent by Deckers? (See below.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]But P&W, you say that Deckers has spent it on "the UGG brand" rather than on uggs. Incidentally, you seem to know something about these boots, so: Are any of them designed to last? (I read somewhere that EMU brand uggs have better designed heels than UGG brand uggs, but the source was not reliable.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My perspective is the consumer. I bought a pair for my wife several years ago. I took the small precaution of spraying them with a waterproof coating before wrapping them up and handing them over. There are a few small signs of wear like any other outdoor gear, but they've lasted over the years in our unkind winters, and she wears them often. Of course there are different styles of sole and I picked a pair with a sturdy walking sole and heel, rather than a thinner slipper type sole. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Section Break B

User:Phoenix and Winslow, your suggestion is complete nonsense. Australians are just angry about their culture being stolen by greedy outsiders who are profiteering.(Huey45 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

I might respond that the trademark was not stolen, but registered in 25 countries by an Australian and then purchased fair and square. I might add that the Aussie companies are greedy insiders who are profiteering, by piggybacking on the millions spent on worldwide brand development by Deckers. Closer review of the Dutch decision reveals that the fakes marketed by La Cheapa in the Netherlands were manufactured in Australia by someone other than UGG Australia, but had the Deckers UGG logo on the heel, and came in packaging bearing the UGG logo and sunburst emblem. It looks like a trade dress violation. At least one Australian manufacturer is not as innocent as you've previously claimed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45, why all the indignation? If Deckers has managed to hoodwink jurisdictions into allowing the registration of a trademark for "Ugg", other Australians can still sell uggs, just (in most parts of the world) by some other name. It's not as if Deckers has monopolized the slaughter of sheep for short-lived boots. ¶ Meanwhile, let us enjoy the spectacle of "the millions spent on worldwide brand development by Deckers" percolating their way into this article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't own or sell a country's culture; that trademark is a sham. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be up to courts in the Netherlands or USA to facilitate the sale of Australia's culture. Imagine if an Australian court declared that one company had the exclusive right to make clogs. (Huey45 (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Huey45 - In any case the Deckers trademark dispute is not really relevant to this article, which is about a generic footwear style. I would suggest that, at the most, it only merits a link either to a separate article or the Deckers article. As it seems that it is this barely relevant dispute which is the focus of such contention, then maybe it should be removed from this article entirely so that the Deckers fan club can operate in a more congenial atmosphere, away from here.

Hoary - Let us not "enjoy" the spectacle. I often use Wikipedia as a quick reference to things I'm not sure about and would rather it stayed reliable, concise, clear and informative.Daveosaurus (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45, no, imagine if an Australian court declared that one company had the exclusive right to use the trademark "Clog". Incidentally, talk of clogs bring to mind Crocs. It was only recently that I realized the intensity of the affection that Crocs can inspire. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dave, you don't understand the passion felt by the Uggs-N-Rugs fan club on this page for their own fave footwear. Or perhaps you do. The enormous victory by the Australian David against the Deckers Goliath in Australian trademark court once occupied nearly all of the space that was devoted to the question of trademarks. The article therefore seemed to be a product of the following train of thought: "How can we write this article to best serve the commercial interests of Australian boot manufacturers?" And the obvious answer: "Talk about the enormous victory and nothing else." And that's how the article in The Independent, which had clearly taken the side of the plucky little Aussies against the big bad Yanks, came to be referenced ten times (yes, count them, ten times) in this article's mainspace. That single source has been used as the official narrative in this article.

But Australia and New Zealand are only a small part of the world. It appears that "ugg boots" is a generic term in Australia and New Zealand, but nowhere else. The law says it. The polling results say it. The sources say it as well -- when viewing all of them objectively, rather than focusing on a single source that's clearly biased in the Aussie's favor. The article must reflect this fact. For an overwhelming majority of English-speaking people in the world, if they "use Wikipedia as a quick reference to [a thing they're] not sure about" called "ugg boots," they're looking for a brand name, not a generic term. Imagine an article that needed to cite The New York Times article of 7-31-2010 ten times, the Dutch court decision ten times, and the Glasgow Evening Times article ten times, to support the 30 sentences in the article that were drawn from those sources. I'd rather not. Instead, I'd like to follow Wikipedia policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're remarkably certain about the beliefs of English-speaking people in the world, P&W. And who here is in the "Uggs-N-Rugs fan club"? (Me, I still don't possess an example of any brand of ugg -- but then the temperature is up in the thirties here.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I rely on the court decision in the koolaburra case, Hoary, which contains the survey results. "UHI" refers to Uggs Holdings Inc., the company founded by an Australian surfer that owned 25 UGG trademarks in countries worldwide, including Australia, when Deckers bought the company.

Prior to its acquisition by Deckers, UHI primarily sold its "UGG" boots via a network of specialty footwear and sporting goods stores, and via mail order catalogs. Deckers has since successfully repositioned the brand as a luxury line of sheepskin products—predominantly boots, but also including handbags and outerwear—widely available through high-end retailers, such as Nordstrom. Deckers' extensive efforts to promote the UGG brand have led to an exponential growth in the brand's popularity and recognizability. [emphasis added] In fact, not only does Deckers regularly place UGG advertisements in major American newspapers and magazines, but the UGG brand also has received extensive unsolicited coverage in such periodicals and has been featured on television programs and in motion pictures. As a result of this notoriety, the UGG brand's sales revenues exceeded $100 million in 2004.[22]

This is what US$7 million US$8 million in cleverly designed and placed marketing efforts will get you: a $100 million a year industry niche, based on your trademarked brand name. What a great investment for that US$8 million by Deckers. It "successfully repositioned the brand." They made "extensive efforts to promote the UGG brand." These efforts paid off handsomely, by leading "to an exponential growth in the brand's popularity and recognizability" not only in North America, but also Europe and Asia. These are all the largest markets, larger than Australia's market by orders of magnitude. They have even received "extensive unsolicited coverage" in periodicals, "television programs and in motion pictures."

And this is what a greedy Australian manufacturer in Melbourne tried to exploit by producing counterfeit Deckers UGG brand boots, that were roundly condemned in the Dutch La Cheapa decision. The greedy Australian manufacturer stole the UGG logo and packaging style, copying even the UGG pamphlet and the UGG box it came in, and marketed fake UGG brand boots. As such, the greedy Australian manufacturer's sales agent in the Netherlands violated both trademark and copyright laws, and was held liable for not only damages and profits, but also thousands of dollars in legal fees. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a story, P&W. There may be a moral in it about the likely fate of any Australian outfit with the gall to attempt to cash in on the heartwarming result of eight million dollars legally spent by an upstanding corporation. Do you think Wikipedia should have a separate article about it? ¶ That matter aside, you're still depending on the results of a survey arranged to make a point, and you're still banging on about "the UGG brand". The "Levi's" brand is discussed in Levi Strauss & Co.; perhaps the "UGG" brand should be discussed in Deckers Outdoor Corporation. WP needs an article about uggs of whatever brand, UGG of course included, or of no brand, for those readers who are more interested in uggs than in brands ("repositioned" or otherwise), availability through "high-end retailers" (expensive shops?), and the other marketing blather. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This article can and should accommodate both the generic term and the brand. Chevrolet and GMC are brands of the General Motors corporation, but they have their own articles. Jeep is a brand of the Chrysler Corporation and it also has a separate article. Like "Ugg," the term "Jeep" comes from uncertain origins and the brand name has passed from one company to another; this American icon is now owned by the Italian Fiat, but I don't see any American editors flocking to the Jeep article and claiming that it's now about a generic term, rather than a brand name. Levi jeans are a misleading example, since they are the first word in the name of the parent company, much like "Polo" is the first word in the name of Polo Ralph Lauren, and Gucci is the first word in the name of the parent company, Gucci Brothers. Wherever a substantial brand name differs sharply from the name of its parent company, Wikipedia has a separate article for the brand name; and in the case of UGG boots, this is it.

We have a survey whose results indicate that an overwhelming majority of English-speaking women outside Australia view the word "UGG" as a brand name, not a generic term. "58% of all survey respondents thought UGG was a brand name, whereas only 11% thought UGG was a common name ... Among those survey respondents who had an opinion, 84% thought UGG was a brand name."[23] (Page 6 of the Koolaburra decision.) These results are overwhelming. This survey, its methodology and its results were carefully reviewed by a federal judge and found to be reliable enough for him to rely upon them in his decision. If you have some other survey results indicating that the reverse is true, I'd be happy to review them. But until such survey results or other contraindicative proofs emerge, this survey result should inform us about what we should do with this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP needs an article about uggs of whatever brand, UGG of course included, or of no brand, for those readers who are more interested in uggs than in brands ... And how many of those readers do we have? Do you have any hard data on that, to compare with other hard data on the numbers of WP readers looking for the brand name? Yes, that survey was arranged to make a point, but I think it's made the point very well. Perhaps we should allocate space in the article to the UGG brand, and to other brands, proportionately with each company's worldwide market share in the sheepskin boots market. Any hard data on that? UGG's worldwide sales were US$100 million in 2004. What were the worldwide sales for Uggs-N-Rugs, Mortels, Blue Mountain and Jumbo Ugg? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Edit confictJeep is a great example except that the brand existed first and then became a generic term, likewise the brand hoover has become a generic term for a vaccuum cleaner but neither are example that reflect Uggs. This is because Uggs started as a generic term and then became a brand name which was then overturned in its place of origin. Going back to the survey which was discussed in previous sections and which you have archived, doesnt not indicate that an overwhelming majority of English-speaking women outside Australia view the word "UGG" as a brand name it was a survey of 400 women in California specifically done for a court case and shoud only be used within the context of that case.. P&W your WP:COI is showing Gnangarra 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no COI. Perhaps others do, but I don't (and my editing history tends to confirm that). I'm just a consumer. The brand name "Jeep" didn't exist until 1950,[24] but there were over 350,000 vehicles built in World War II and shipped all over the world. The British and the Russians were building their own, similar vehicles (see, for example, GAZ-67) which came to be referred to as "jeeps." Nevertheless, the mark was successfully registered in 1950. I make no use of the survey in the article mainspace. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't inform and guide our development of this article. This is not the Australian Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia, providing information to all English-speaking people in the world. It needs to be written that way. UGG dominates the worldwide market, so it's difficult to justify any dominance of this article by the much smaller Australian brands and their obvious commercial interests. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of manufacturers who produce ugg boots, at least one of whom has been producing ugg boots since, it is claimed, the 1930s. One of those manufacturers, who started manufacturing them only in 1999, has managed to turn that into an internationally successful brand, while most of the others focused just on the Australian and New Zealand markets. Deckers has done very well. That said, irrespective of their success, to focus on just one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others would be POV. At the moment Deckers is mentioned in the lead, a third of the history section, extensively in the trademarks section, and has a whole section about counterfeit Deckers boots (which is repeated over at Deckers Outdoor Corporation), and which includes a quote alluding to the high quality of the product. On the other hand, Uggs-N-Rugs is only mentioned once in regard to the trademark dispute and two other companies are mentioned once in regard to history. Thus I'm not sure why you see this piece as dominated by Australian brands, who barely get a mention. The history of the ugg boot style is relevant irrespective of whether you see them as a brand owned by Deckers or not, and the trademark dispute was a big deal in at least two countries. Both warrant coverage. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One of those manufacturers, who started manufacturing them only in 1999 ... Incorrect. Ugg Holdings Inc., a company founded by an Australian, started producing them in 1979. UHI has been bought by Deckers (in 1995, not 1999), but the purchase doesn't alter the historic fact that UHI started producing them in 1979. UHI is not a Johnny-come-lately to the ugg boots business -- just the most market savvy.

... to focus on just one manufacturer to the exclusion of the others would be POV. How were the other manufacturers excluded? Several Australian companies have been mentioned and if you'd like to add more about them, I'm sure we could work it out. But I think the explosive growth of the UGG brand -- from a few million a year in 1999, to US$100 million by 2004 -- is noteworthy enough to mention in the article lede. It's getting very late here so I must say good night. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Deckers purchased the rights, but Deckers, who are mostly responsible for the success outside of Australia and New Zealand, have only been making them since 1995. That they purchased the trademark from another company is interesting, but doesn't mean that Deckers have been making them since 1979. That said, whether it is 1979 or 1995, the main point is that there are a number of companies who make ugg boots, one of whom has an international presence, and thus the article should reflect this. Deckers are mentioned in the lead, and dominate the rest of the article, but as they are the only company mentioned in the lead I'm not sure that they need much more emphasis there, as doing so without mentioning other manufacturers seems to be undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Someone Going to Submit a(n) RfC?

I was leafing through the protection requests and saw this one posted and was intrigued by the situation. Having never heard of 'ugg' boots (either referenced generically or as a name brand) I read the article and see there's obviously been some hoobajoo about the trademark and use of the name. While it appears to be a pretty thorny international issue, I'm not really sure why that should result in any sort of problem in creating the article. Is it an issue of weight (consideration of the name brand vs. the generic term)?
I'd be glad to offer a third opinion if the dissenting parties wanted to sum up the situation.
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My view is that an extraordinarily excessive amount of time is spent tweaking and discussing wording regarding trademarks and counterfeiting. Sure, there are issues, and they should be briefly mentioned, but the lavish detail that some would like is indistinguishable from company promotion. Trademark and counterfeiting details are important to a company's bottom line, but are not important in an encyclopedic article (in the absence of substantial coverage by independent sources which highlight the issue as something of enduring significance). For example, software, DVDs, handbags and lots more are counterfeited, yet their articles seem to make do with a brief statement (see Rolex#Counterfeits). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the issue arises from those who would like to make this article all about the generic term "ugg boot" (all Australian or New Zealander) and me, an American who believes that the article also needs to give the identical "UGG" brand name its due. One Australian company was found by a Dutch court to be counterfeiting UGG brand boots (applying the logo to its own product, and using virtually identical packaging and brochures). So the dishonest practices of at least one Australian company in the dispute are worth noting, and that company's dishonesty may have somehow percolated its way to this discussion. Careful worldwide brand promotion, coupled with the fortuitous timing of unsolicited celebrity endorsements and product placements in films and on television, grew UGG brand boots from a US$14.5 million worth of sales in 1995[25] to US$100 million by 2004. But the Australian editors, for some reason, do not find this explosive brand growth (called "exponential growth" by an American federal judge -- judges do not normally use such superlatives) to be notable enough for the article lede, and prefer to bury it in the "History" section. I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect that all of the Australian companies' annual sales combined wouldn't equal 10% of the UGG brand's sales. Furthermore, making this article about the generic term is (IMHO) an effort to make this the Australian Wikipedia. In Australia and New Zealand, it's a generic term; but in the rest of the world, it's a brand name. I suggest that the emphasis of the article should reflect WP:WEIGHT, with "brand name" as the majority opinion, and "generic term" as the minority opinion. Looking forward to your third opinion on this matter, K10wnsta. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you K10wnsta for your offer. The crux of the issue seems to be that there are many manufacturers making sheepskin boots. For most of the world the term Ugg is recognized as a brand name of sheepskin boot and (as another editor has already noted) this translates to 1.6 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, 300 million Russians, 300 million Americans and 60 million Germans perceive Ugg to be a brand name. In Australia however it may be considered a generic term. The debate is whether the term Ugg which is globally protected in over 24 major markets should be considered a generic term for a sheepskin boot because it is considered generic in Australia. Not sure why such a small segment of the worlds population should dictate to the majority. For my part, when I want to check an encyclopedia for "Porsche" I expect to read about the Porsche - not all sports cars. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how neutral my summary would be, but just to toss in my (extended) thoughts:

• It appears that ugg boots are a style of sheepskin boots that have been made in Australia and New Zealand for many years, although it isn't entirely certain how long they have been called that.
• Over the years, ugg boots have become something of a cultural icon in Australia and New Zealand, and a large number of manufacturers appeared who sold the boots in those countries.
• From the mid 70's the term "UGG" was trademarked by one company in many countries, including Australia, and eventually the trademark came into the hands of Deckers, who invested a great deal of money into successfully promoting their brand - to the extent that outside of Australia and New Zealand the term "UGG" seems to be generally connected to the Deckers' shoes, rather than the style.
• Deckers then aggressively defended their trademark in Australia. This resulted in a bit of a national outcry, as the various manufacturers making the boots in Australia argued that they never thought to trademark the term as it was generic, and depicted it as a big US corporation trying to steal a national icon. They successfully appealed the trademark registration, and in Australia and New Zealand the term is regarded as a generic word that cannot be trademarked.
• As a result, the Australian and NZ manufacturers can call the boots "uggs", but are not permitted to sell them under that name outside of the two countries.
• Meanwhile, the success of Deckers' brand has led to extensive counterfeiting. It isn't clear from the sources if this exclusively means deliberate passing off of ugg boots as Deckers-specific items, or if it includes "generic" ugg boots identified as such being sold outside of Australia and New Zealand without pretending to be made be Deckers - although it is clear that the former has occurred.

The issues then come down to:

1. Should the article focus on the Deckers product, which is (by far) the best known product outside of Australia and New Zealand?
2. Should the article focus on the generic style of boots that happens to also be a trademarked term?
3. Should the article combine both the specific product and the style, and if so how should the weight be distributed?

Consensus has previously been for either 2) or 3). The issue with 3) has been weight - from an Australian/NZ perspective, the style of boots originated there and is a part of their cultural identity, and thus the article should be predominately on the style, not the specific brand. From Deckers' perspective they've invested a great deal on money into it, and, as P&W and Middlemarch2256 point out, outside of the countries of origin the term UGG is predominantly connected (although not, it seems, exclusively) with Deckers' particular brand. - Bilby (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the offer. I haven't been following the article for a great length of time, but it seems to have been reasonably stable (although quite busy) until March of this year. Since then, we have had a number of editors, one at a time, who seem to have more interest in ugg boots (and Deckers brand ugg boots, at that) than anything else in Wikipedia, constantly editing the article so as to slant it towards being a promotional article for Deckers. These editors include an admitted sockpuppet: [26] , an implied meatpuppet: [27] , and one last who, while having a longer history on Wikipedia than the others, does occasionally lapse into incivility: [28] and accusations of conspiracy: [29] . I would suggest (and I would have done the edits myself if this fruitless debate had gone on much longer) that the most practical solution for creating a stable article would be to restore it to being about the generic style of boots, with a hatnote directing readers who want to know about ugg boots made by Deckers to the Deckers page (or that of their brand of boots, if one exists). Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Various American editors are saying that even though it's an Australian word and part of Australian culture, the fact that it was misrepresented when introduced to people on the other side of the world, who subsequently mistook it for a brand name, should nullify the true meaning of the word. (Huey45 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

That's dishonest spin. Please immediately stop misrepresenting what we've said per WP:TPNO. Various American editors believe that since an Australian company filed for trademarks worldwide, an American company bought the Australian company fair and square and then spent millions developing brand consciousness, they should be able to use and protect the brand as allowed by the laws of every country in the world. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45: Various American editors are saying that [...] ¶ P&W: Various American editors believe that [...] ¶ I don't even know which editors are American. But once these Americans have been identified, we do know what they've said (as long as they've expressed themselves coherently). Knowledge of their beliefs is rather harder. ¶ Like Daveosauraus, I'm amazed by the way a series of editors have dedicated such a high percentage of their Wikipedia edits to defending Deckers' monopoly of the term "ugg". (I see nothing like this at such places as Talk:Budweiser, Talk:Budweiser Bier Bürgerbräu, Talk:Budweiser Budvar Brewery, or Talk:Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch).) P&W, do you think that some tiny percentage of the millions that Deckers has spent "developing brand consciousness" could have somehow found its way into the editing of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a dime has found its way into my pocket, and I could use the money! Seriously, I've never communicated with Deckers or any subsidiary, by phone, mail or e-mail. I'm not on the payroll of Deckers or any law firm or marketing firm that has Deckers as a client. I'm just a satisfied customer. But I think a similar question might reasonably be directed at our Aussie and Kiwi editors concerning their motives. By keeping any mention of the UGG brand limited, they can raise worldwide awareness of "ugg boots" as a generic term without spending a dime on marketing. This serves the commercial interests of Australian manufacturers. Budweiser is a fine example, since about 2/3 of the article is devoted to disputes over use of the word "Budweiser" to market beer.[30] It's a trademark, and it isn't contained in the name of the parent company, Anheuser-Busch, so the brand name "Budweiser" and the generic term "Budweiser" share an article. Good show, Hoary. I guess the difference on the Talk pages of those articles is that the trademark disputes were ironed out many years before Wikipedia was invented, and also the German (and Czech) countries of origin don't have a substantial presence among English Wikipedia editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As P&W implies I have had contact with Uggs-N-Rugs which is obvious as my photographs of them making uggs boots are in this article and the article on them. I initiated the contact with an email copied here compete with spelling errors;

I had just been reviewing the Wikipedia article on Ugg boots and it struck me that wjhile theres some generic boot photographs they are rather boring, I'm making the presumption that your in Perth and manufacture them here, if so would it be possible to arrange to take some photographs of Uggs being made in Australia for the article.
Also the Douglas Moran National Contemporary Photographic Prize is open for submissions, as they want submission of contemporary life in Australia I believe that the manufacture of Uggs boots would be a wonderful subject. While I'm endeavouring to make a living in Perth as photographer I would release these photographs under a free license that make them available to anyone to use

They agreed and let me in there to take photographs which I then uploaded here, its an approach I've used successfully before to get photographs for Wikipedia as has many other photographers who contribute here. Except access to take the photographs I recieved nothing from them, the choice of company was purely to do with the fact that I live near them. If I lived in china I'd be happy to photograph Deckers production line, if deckers want to contact me maybe we can work something out as their production process would be different given the location and volumes they produce. Since I took the photographs I've limited my editing of the article, I am primarily responding to issues on the talk page. Even though I have no WP:COI I recognise that taking a photograph creates such a perception especially on such a heated topic but thats the cost of working to improve Wikipedias visual coverage beyond a photograph of the feet/legs of some random in the street wearing a pair of Uggs. This article does attract a unique string of editors who purport to be trying to give perspective/balance/weight to the brand "UGG Austraia" they all tick the duck test boxes for sockpuppets and COI editors P&W is right this article is/has always been about the generic term and Deckers is only recent part of that. Yes Deckers has spent millions in advertising, they have spent it to promote their product not to purchase the history of Ugg boots nor its iconic status in Austraia, even clothing designers recognise Uggs as part of our national costume. In the up coming Miss Universe contest they are being worn by the Australian entrant, they have been worn by national teams at the Olympics and the Commonwealth games none of which has anything to with the money Deckers spent on advertising but solely due to them being recognised as Australian. I wait to see K10wnsta comments Gnangarra 01:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've spent the past several hours reading what everyone's said, digging through the references here, and further researching the situation via independant sources to formulate some semblence of an opinion. This is a rare circumstance that has never been directly addressed by established policies or naming conventions on wikipedia, so getting off the fence on the matter took lengthier analysis than I anticipated.
Please allow me a couple more hours to finish composing the post of my opinion, potential compromise, and summary of how I came to them.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

Full disclosure: I'm American. I mention this because it inherently biases me in as much as it lends to involuntary ignorance of how things are perceived in other cultures. I work hard to bridge the gap, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't exist. As such, prior to doing any digging here, I wanted an analogy to give me a better understanding of Australian perspective on the matter. The following is the best I could come up with:

Imagine flip flops were a generic commodity exclusive to the United States for much of the 20th century. Plenty of companies made them, but knowledge of their existence didn't extend too far from the north american continent. Now imagine an entrepeneur took a couple flip flops to Australia, found immediate demand for them, and began producing and selling them under a 'Flip Flop' brand name there. The entrepeneur went on to establish markets (and trademarks) throughout all of Asia and over into Europe. All the while, generic flip flops continued to be sold in the United States with little issue. Enter the internet, and suddenly these long-established american companies could sell their generic product online. Unfortunately, on the global market, describing their merchandise as 'flip flops' takes advantage of Company X's heavily invested brand name. Whose claim to the terminology takes precedence in titling an encyclopedia article on 'flip flops'?

I'll be honest, initially, I couldn't satisfactorily answer it. Even after relating it to and analyzing the circumstances of the ugg boots affair for several hours I was on the fence. But then I found the actual court document from the Australian trademark revocation. This answered many lingering questions I had about the veracity of generic use of the term.

Issued in 2006, it is the most recent legally binding ruling from a developed nation's court of law regarding the basic terminology (the Dutch case, resolved in 2008, explicitly dealt with product counterfeiting, failing to address the merits of written content - §4.19) and it makes clear the longstanding use of ugg/ugh/ug boots as a generic phrase. While past rulings in other countries upheld the trademark, they could not factor this precedent in to their decisions and future cases (regarding use of the terminology) will be much more challenging for the trademark holder to win. Of course, it is not our task to speculate what may or may not happen in the future. We are tasked with detailing things as they are now and 'ugg boots' has existed as a generic term for almost a century. It also happens to be a term that a heads-up business used to its advantage in building an empire in much of the industrialized world.

All that being said (if you aren't asleep yet), we should handle this the same way we handle other such situations: allowing this core article to address the established generic term while pointing out the article devoted to the massive business interest sprung from it. The solution could be as simple as incorporating a clear disambiguation line prior to the lead (ie. For information about the designer/brand name footwear, please see Ugg Australia). For a similar circumstance, see apple. Of course, the Ugg Australia article could really stand to be punched up, but I'll leave that to the discretion of editors more knowledgable in the actual product line than mayself.

It is what it is, and at the end of the day, they deserve seperate articles (with clear disambiguation), not for the nefarious purpose of obscuring the status of either entity, but because they are now two very seperate things sprung from the same.
--K10wnsta (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(the Dutch case, resolved in 2008, explicitly dealt with product counterfeiting, failing to address the merits of written content - §4.19) Just a moment, you seem to have overlooked §4.6 in the same decision: "One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in the Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia." It's reasonable to conclude that the trademark courts of any other country in the world (outside of Australia and New Zealand) would adopt the same approach. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you expressed your concern a bit more thoroughly on my talk page and I'll address that point for point here this evening (I have another obligation I have to tend to prior to being able to do so, however). I'll mention that I did actually take those things (along with several others) into account, but I trimmed a lot of the supplemental details out of my post so I wasn't cramming a novella down everyone's throat.
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm especially interested in how you explain that the Dutch decision "fail[ed] to address the merits of written content." That case addressed the merits of several types of written content under the laws of the Benelux Convention, from the word "UGG" itself (brand name or generic term) to the contents of a printed "UGG boots" brochure. Counterfeiting was only mentioned in the charging part of the document. The Dutch company was not found liable for "counterfeiting" specifically, but for several other violations of intellectual property law such as copyright. How could La Cheapa be found liable for a copyright violation, without addressing the merits of written content? That's a tough one. And in that case, the term "counterfeiting" is really the only generic term: layman's language for the actual wording of Dutch IP law that was violated, described by the judge in different parts of his ruling as "trademark infringement" (§4.12), copyright infringement (§4.22), "acts of unfair competition" (§4.23), "misrepresentation" (§4.24), and a second count of trademark infringement (§4.28). Yes, in Anglo-American terms it could be described as "counterfeiting" but it was a lot more than that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you recommending the removal of most of the Deckers/trademark/counterfeit material from this article, while possibly adding similar to Ugg Australia (which is currently a redirect to Deckers Outdoor Corporation)? If so, that sounds good to me. If anyone would identify undue material remaining after that, we should eliminate it as well (I think I saw a suggestion in previous discussions that some spamming was being done for non-Deckers companies; all undue promotional waffle should be removed). Of course the court document you mentioned could only be used to illustrate a point made in a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. But I think there should be a clear disambiguation. The only way a non-Deckers company (that makes ugg boots) should be mentioned on wikipedia is if they are somehow noteworthy enough to have their own page (and they wouldn't warrant explicit disambiguation at the top of this page).

The more and more I look, the more I'm discovering this situation is really without parallel. There are plenty of brand names that became genericized (Kleenex, Xerox, Kraft dinner in Canada, Coke* in Georgia, etc.) but no clear examples of a generic term being usurped as a trade name.

*As a humorous aside: Growing up in Georgia, I actually had the following conversation with a waitress at PoFolks (a regional chain restaraunt which I've just noticed has no article on wikipedia yet - in case an editor is eager to boost their created article count):

Waitress: What kind of Coke do you want?
Me: Pepsi.
Waitress: All we have is RC.
Me: Then why'd you ask what kind of Coke I wanted?
Waitress: I'm supposed to.
Me: I'll take lemonade.

--K10wnsta (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your carefully considered opinion on this Klownsta. I'm still taking it all in (and no it wasn't too long just detailed as it needed to be), but hopefully we can use your advice to move forward on this. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the solution proposed by User:K10wnsta. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

I'm transcribing Phoenix's post from my talk page as it brings up valid points which I did not thoroughly detail in my original opinion:

(the Dutch case, resolved in 2008, explicitly dealt with product counterfeiting, failing to address the merits of written content - §4.19)

Just a moment, you seem to have overlooked §4.6 in the same 2008 decision: "One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in the Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia."[31] Survey data was submitted in an American court case in 2005, indicating that an overwhelming majority of consumers perceived UGG as a brand name, not a generic term. (See page 6 of the federal court ruling.) [32] Both of these decisions address the merits of written content. These decisions indicate how courts in the rest of the world (outside of Australia and New Zealand) will react to the argument that it's a generic term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding §4.6 of the Dutch decision: Because no evidence was submitted in defense of the use of 'ugg boots' in written form (in §4.19), the only basis for the claim of the phrase being generic fell to the existence of a company in Australia which had been using the name 'Jumbo Uggs' for a period of time. The court ruled that this alone was not enough to support such an argument (what's more, the defendants were blatantly guilty of counterfeiting Ugg Australia's product - right down to the packaging - and in no position to even argue the merits of the terminology).

The key question we need answered is this:
Does the term 'ugg boots' legitimately exist in a generic form (like 'watch' or 'flip flops') and in modern usage in an English speaking part of the world?
In the California ruling, the only significant evidence presented to prove that it did was an edition of the Oxford English Dictionary with 'ugg boots' listed generically as a sheepskin boot (and that was tied to the trademark following Decker's appeal to the trademark editor at the dictionary). This lone incident does not suffice to establish that it was a generic phrase and on that alone, we have to take Decker's claim, and their small surveys of polled consumers, at face value.

But the evidence submitted in the Australian ruling makes it very clear that ugg boots are accepted as a generic term there and have been for much longer than the actual Ugg Boot trademark existed anywhere else. With that, the generic form has to take precedence in our treatment of the encyclopedia article.

This isn't a case like Band-Aid or Kleenex where a trademark became a catchall term - here, a brand name was born of a longstanding generic term. No degree of business interest or marketing allows a company to assume ownership of such a term or its entry in an encyclopedia (or dictionary). Again, it is what it is, and the policy of WEIGHT does not apply because there aren't really any conflicting viewpoints on the matter. Deckers can claim 'ugg boots' never existed in generic form all they want, but we cannot pander to revisionist history in the name of corporate interest here. That people may first think of, or come searching for, the brand name Ugg Boots is easily resolved with a disambiguation at the outset of the article.

Going back to the 'flip flop' analogy, it doesn't really matter how much exposure a hypothetical Flip Flops name brand gets as a result of marketing - it doesn't change the fact that flip-flops, as a generic form of footwear existed long before that name brand came along. In this case, the primary focus of our core flip flops article has to address the generic form. Jandals are a notable brand of flip flop, although they did not achieve the name recognition or notoriety we find ourselves dealing with here, and as such, have not earned an article of their own.

I should clarify that a brief summary of the Ugg Boots trademarking issue may be warranted in this article, but I really think the brunt of information about the name brand deserves deeper coverage on an exclusive page (and I honestly think this would be in the best interest of Ugg Australia as well...maybe not in defense of their trademark, but certainly in exposure).
--K10wnsta (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
btw, I make every effort to whittle these posts down to the essential elements. Lacking body language and the accentuation of speech, it's easy to misinterpret the written word and I want someone who makes the effort to understand exactly what I'm trying to say. I apologize if it comes off as needlessly academic and long-winded.

Have you compared the Budweiser series of articles? The term "Budweiser" referred to someone or something that came from Budweis, a city that was then German (now part of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice). Like "ugg boots," the generic term existed long before the brand had been registered as a trademark by Anheuser-Busch. Over half of that article is devoted to trademark disputes. Yes, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), as well as Anheuser-Busch, are separate articles and there's a disambiguation hatnote at Budweiser. But I repeat, over half of the Budweiser article is devoted to the trademark dispute. This is a precedent that should be used to guide us in shaping this article. Regarding the lede, I think you'll agree that when a brand of boot goes from $14.5 million a year in 1995 to $100 million a year in 2004, that is very noteworthy. It belongs in the lede and it doesn't take up a lot of space. The federal judge's description of this growth as "exponential" is colorful language not normally used by a judge; I think that should be used in the lede as well. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Budweiser series of articles, particularly Budweiser, shouldn't be the only thing that guides us. We should mainly be guided by WP:WEIGHT and I'll quote it here at length:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

The key phrase here is "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." If we have six reliable sources discussing "ugg boots" as a generic term, and six reliable sources of equal magnitude discussing the trademark disputes surrounding UGG brand boots, then the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" should be divided 50/50 between the two concepts. Unfortunately, what we have is a situation where sources in Australia and New Zealand describing the generic term, and most of all one particular article from a British paper (The Independent) that is extremely favorable to Australian manufacturers, receive undue weight. That article in The Independent is cited no less than ten times. Other sources of equal or greater reliability and magnitude—specifically The New York Times article of July 31, the Dutch court decision, and the American court decision—get fewer cites and are placed farther down in the article. This is a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

There's a large number of reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Aussies take up the first 2/3 of the article.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] In "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear. One article in particular[42] is favorable to Deckers. But it's excluded and the Independent article favorable to the Aussies gets cited ten times.

There are also abundant decisions in arbitration, where Deckers won and Internet domain names were removed. The first involved an Australian manufacturer, Australian Aura, but there were others as well.Australian Aura[43][44][45][46][47][48] These are all reliable sources about the trademark dispute, but instead an article in The Independent gets cited ten times. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet K10wnsta gives the opinion that this article should focus to the generic term, with a hatnote to Ugg Australia for the brand where information on sales volumes and dolar values about the brand can be given appropriate detail. The thing is if a customer wants to know about its product they are going to search for the brand name thats on the label thats on their boots adn UGG Australia doesnt label them with Ugg boots. If a person look for Ugg boots then they are going to see the origins of the boots which is why the brand is "UGG Austraia".
Thank you K10wnsta for your efforts in trying to help by giving an independent opinion of the issues your efforts and comment are appreciated. Gnangarra 13:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Gang. I learned quite a bit about quite a lot I never knew, so it was my pleasure. Prior to taking my leave of the matter, I'm going to address a couple specifics Phoenix brought up following my addendum and add a couple details from my original analysis that I ommitted.

...over half of the Budweiser article is devoted to the trademark dispute.

The Budweiser situation differs in a couple key ways:

• Budweiser was not a generic term describing beer.
• The issue with Budweiser is primarily between identical registered trademarks from different countries.
• It has been going on for well over a century. Ugg boots only became a matter of conflict about 15 years ago (altho the seeds of that conflict were sewn in the 1970's)

I do agree with you now that the trademark issue warrants mention on this page. However, with only 2 notable legal proceedings directly addressing the matter of trademark vs. generic use (the Dutch counterfeit issue belongs on the Ugg Australia page), I can't imagine how it would justify more than 2 or 3 sentences.

...when a brand of boot goes from $14.5 million a year in 1995 to $100 million a year in 2004, that is very noteworthy. It belongs in the lede and it doesn't take up a lot of space.

That is certainly an impressive business feat, but mention of it belongs in the encyclopedia's article about that business, not a generic product they happen to produce.

...The federal judge's description of this growth as "exponential" is colorful language not normally used by a judge; I think that should be used in the lede as well.

I'm afraid including that would be, at best, synthesis, and at worst, original research.

{It's worth noting that all of the domain name arbitrations you mentioned took place prior to the Australian ruling that the trademark was invalid. Additionally, the fact that formal legal proceedings were underway in Australia was inferred as evidence in support of Decker's complaint (something that would now be a terrible liability to them in the same cases).}

I think part of the confusion may lie in the association of this with a 'viewpoint'. There is no viewpoint involved. Either ugg boots existed as a generic term for sheepskin boots or it didn't. If the term Ugg boots was the creative brainchild of Mr. Shane Steadman (the man who filed for the original trademark), then this article should be devoted to Decker's product. If ugg boots was generic for a particular type of footwear, then that must be the article's focus. As the latter circumstance holds true, its method of handling must be invoked.

If an American Indian went to Australia and made a Tipi brand tent and developed a trademark of it that came to be recognized throughout much of the world, it would not change the fact that our tipi article would address the generic form tipi. What's more, handling it as such should not be construed as favoring any small companies that use 'tipi' as an adjective in describing their product (or their company name).

Phoenix, I'm sorry I can't support you on this one. You've provided clear evidence to support your argument and I respect that. I'm also fairly certain I understand the perspective you're looking at it from, as I took great pains to walk both sides of the fence in assessing this. But the reality is, as an encyclopedia, our first priority is to general knowledge information and 'ugg boots' are (and were) a thing first. All the name brands and companies that make ugg boots are secondary - tertiary, even - in our coverage. In the long run, it would be intellectually irresponsible to address the matter any other way.
But my opinion holds no more weight than any other objective editor, so I encourage you to pursue more input on the matter and wish you the best of luck. I'm going to move on from this subject as it's starting to make me want to gouge my eyes out ;-), if anyone needs me for anything (ie. some earthshattering new evidence comes to light or a briefer summary of my opinion is required for arbitration), just shoot me a line.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that excellent review. My only concern in this is that Wikipedia not be used for promotion: remove all fluff that may promote Australian interests, and remove all fluff that may promote American interests. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OT diversion

Good morning, Gnangarra. You still haven't produced any proof that I ever tried, ... to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit ... I have asked for proof of your accusation since August 12. I still look forward to any proof you may offer to support this accusation, or a retraction and apology. Please indicate where I have made such an outrageous claim, Gnangarra. Anywhere. In mainspace or on this Talk page. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If an Ugg boot is made of sheep skin then it isnt counterfeit, that is what this article is about if the article was to be bias towards Australia then a counterfeit Ugg boot would be ones made in China by multinational companies. What P&W is saying is that a counterfeit UGG boot is one that isnt made by Deckers, to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit violates WP:NPOV any coverage of conterfeit boots should be about the materials only in this article with Decker specific issues in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article my quote in full its actually self explanatory the counterfeit section at the time of my comment was defining a counterfeit boot as being one that wasnt made by deckers, there is nothing to retract. Oh while your at it your legal threat at WP:RFPP hasnt been withdrawn either. Gnangarra 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any legal threat at WP:RFPP. I merely observed the fact that Deckers had previously taken court action to protect its trademark. Diff:[49] "The counterfeit section at the time of [your] comment" is here and does not "define a counterfeit boot as being one that wasnt made by deckers." It defines a counterfeit UGG (all capital letters) boot, in Scotland and the United States, as being one that wasn't made by Deckers. It's clearly limited to the brand name itself and the geographic area of Scotland and the United States. Specifically, not Australia; just the United States and Scotland. Again, "The counterfeit section at the time of [your] comment" is here. It says absolutely nothing about "Australian made boots in the Australian market." Please review that version of the article, and then retract your accusations and apologize. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Flakinho, 17 August 2010

Just to add an interwiki link: "[[es:Botas UGG]]"

Flakinho (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Gnangarra 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Phoenix & Winslow, 18 August 2010

1. Simply to replace the image at the top of the page with this one. [50] All images currently in the article mainspace appear to be from Uggs-N-Rugs. This clearly favors one manufacturer over all the others. I think this photo was in the article earlier and it would be interesting to learn who removed it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better if we keep the current picture up the top. It represents a generic ugg boot and has no visible branding. I can't tell if it's an Uggs-N-Rugs ugg boot because of that and am doubtful it is anyway because it looks 50 years old! The image you're asking to replace it with has very visible branding which I don't think is appropriate in an article primarily about the generic item. Donama (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a brand name. If you think the article has undue material promoting some other business, we need to discuss how to remove that undue material, not try to balance it with blatant promotions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Ugg branded picture looks a looks a lot better. Further, as least as far as the USA is concerned, there's only one Ugg brand boots, trademarked 25 years ago. I see no harm in such a case. I do not think it would be misleading or advantageous in the slightest to see Ugg on the picture--it's been around for 25 years after all. Further, due to the popularity of the brand—every kid in the USA must have a pair—posting a picture of the Ugg brand boots may increase the interest in the wiki page for all ugg boots, much like Rush Limbaugh increased the popularity of all talk radio. In other words, the Ugg branded boots will improve this wiki page, and that's why we are here. At a minimum, find a far better picture of the unbranded boots, but the current one is ugly, from a picture quality point of view. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Also in the "Categories" section, we need to add [[Category:Fashion articles needing attention]] Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Category:Fashion articles needing attention says it is for articles tagged as requiring immediate attention. What immediate attention does this article need? Johnuniq (talk)

It seems like a no-brainer to me, and not even slightly controversial, like adding the [[es:Botas ugg]] link. If this is to be developed as a genuinely generic term, rather than a celebration of Australian culture and the triumph of the little Australian David over the evil American Goliath, then it needs a significant amount of work from a fashion perspective. This term describes a particular article of clothing, like Miniskirt or Beret. What is it about getting more editors involved in this article that worries you? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Trademarks and counterfeits

Many companies fight over branding, counterfeiting, and trademarks several times every year, and a brief outline of these issues is all that is of encyclopedic relevance in this article. I can live with the current statement that Deckers owns the trademark UGG Australia (mainly because it's somewhat interesting that a company from one country owns a trademark identifying another country), however the keepandshare.com reference obviously fails WP:IRS, and the use of a primary source for such a blanket statement is unacceptable (a secondary source is needed because, for example, the legal situation could easily have changed within a month). Most of Ugg boots#Trademark dispute needs severe pruning, for example, a "similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch court" is pure WP:OR (who says it was similar? where is the secondary source?). Even if all the material were suitably sourced, the descriptions are WP:UNDUE here: we all understand that counterfeits of watches, medicines, handbags, running shoes, and much more, are available for purchase in every village and city of the world – if this material is inherently encyclopedic, put it in its own article, but its inclusion here puts an undue slant on this article. Similarly, Ugg boots#Counterfeit products needs pruning: the only justification for this material is to establish some form of branding for a manufacturer, that is, to use Wikipedia to promote a product. Text like "Neil Coltart of the Glasgow City Council said..." is embarrassing, but the whole section is trite nonsense: it's very likely that each of us reading this live within half an hour of markets where vast numbers of counterfeit goods are sold (and of course it's all online); Rolex#Counterfeits deals with this in a dozen words. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how keepandshare.com fails WP:IRS in this instance, where the documents are clearly scans of original court documents. I realize that secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are acceptable under several circumstances. A "similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch court" — I'd suggest replacing "a similar challenge" with "another 'generic term' challenge," which satisfies WP:OR. Rolex#Counterfeits, and other sections like it in similar brand name articles, could stand to be expanded considerably. Now that your sourcing and WP:OR challenges have been addressed, what's left is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The bedrock principle of WP:N only addresses the existence of articles. It does not address the notability of content. "Justification for this material" in this particular article is that the generic term "ugg boot" is being used by the counterfeiting manufacturers as a defense. A substantial amount of space, including a quote from someone (not a judge) who heard the case, is devoted to the Australian case where the generic term triumphed, and the trademark was stricken from the registry. Equivalent space, including quotes from the judges who heard the cases, should be devoted to each of the other cases where the generic term failed, and the trademark triumphed. Remember WP:WEIGHT: weight must be apportioned based on the amount of representation in reliable sources, and is reflected in everything from placement, to amount of space. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a long and most interesting article by Nicholas Schmidle about shoe counterfeiting in today's IHT. The title is "Inside a factory that makes counterfeit shoes"; on the NYT website, it's "Inside the Knockoff-Tennis-Shoe Factory". Uggs aren't mentioned, and indeed non-sports shoes in general aren't mentioned. (It may be that an area of China other than the one Schmidle visited specializes in branded furry boots and the like.) Anyway, as I read it, the only thing that surprises me about the UGG Australia counterfeiting business is that the counterfeits are (if the source is to be believed) of such poor quality. True, Schmidle says nothing, or next to nothing, about actual quality of the counterfeit products (matters affecting comfort, durability, etc), but he does say that a high percentage is of excellent apparent quality. (Apparently the aroma of the glue is a giveaway, or perhaps the only giveaway.) So the counterfeiting of branded shoes is a big business, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia; but the counterfeiting of the "UGG Australia" brand is not obviously remarkable. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the distinction between "the counterfeiting of branded shoes" and "the counterfeiting of the 'UGG Australia' brand" from an encyclopedic perspective, since the latter is an illustrative, educational, and therefore useful example of the former. Good work finding that Schmidle article, since it is also illustrative and I believe it can be used here. ("Should" may be another matter.) But again, notability (or "remarkability") really isn't an issue since WP:N addresses the existence of articles, not their content. Since we've agreed that the Ugg boots article should exist, and should discuss the generic term, the bedrock principle that must guide us is WP:NPOV and, in this case, the WP:WEIGHT section therein. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When you counterfeit the Ugg Australia brand -- you copy the cut, the stitching, the label, the logo using like materials or near like substitues such that the average punter cant distinguish between them. When you counterfeit ugg boots(generic) its about using synethised materials(faux sheepskins) rather than actual sheepskins. Gnangarra 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. That's why the material from the Glasgow Evening Times needs to be in here, Gnangarra. Those were made with UGG boots (brand name) labels, cut, stitching and trade dress; but they were also made out of fake fur, so they were counterfeit ugg boots (generic term). After all that fussing and fighting, once the facts become clear it turns out that we're in complete agreement. The first pint of Foster's Lager is on me, mate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Eww, I'd rather have a Budweiser :) Gnangarra 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how keepandshare.com fails WP:IRS: Isn't that a site where anyone can upload anything, and there is no review? Sure, it is likely that the documents are genuine, but references simply cannot rely on such easily-alterable material. What might be acceptable would be to have a reference to a genuinely reliable source (a secondary source), and include in the reference a link to the scanned documents as a reader convenience, but not as the actual source. I could raise this at WP:RSN if you want other views, but it's an obvious case of failing WP:IRS. The keepandshare document is interesting in another sense because it demonstrates that someone has a strong COI regarding this article (presumably an editor close to Deckers uploaded the document). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just using the sources I found here, John. These keepandshare.com links were already here when I started editing the article. Do you really think they're forgeries? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P&W there have been a quiet a few self confessed Decker respresentatives editing this article most only confess after the have been outed. With the documents there's no oversight to ensure that they are genuine, for the purpose of verifiability we require editorial oversight of sources(secondary sources) or at least sources where authenticity is clear(primary source). Third party sites like this, or youtube can be linked to but cautiosly in an el section, view the Youtube video here or view the document at keepandshare.com which presents the information to reader to make their own decision on authenticity with out compormising our verfiability requirements. Gnangarra 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

During the next 3-4 days, I'm not going to have a lot of time to look up alternate sourcing. If you'd like, we can tag those few portions of the article with {{cn}} until I find new sourcing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Dutch decision at the primary source.[51] Here's a follow-up decision by the same court in September 2009 (reported by a different court reporting agency), fixing the amount of damages and legal fees to be paid by La Cheapa at €13.695.70 [52] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of the section on counterfeiting altogether? It doesn't fit in with the rest of the article which is about generic Australian Ugg Boots. Sure, mention that there's a trademark dispute but this greater detail about counterfeiting belongs on a page about Deckers or UGG AUSTRALIA brand boots, not here70.189.214.56 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

archiving old discussions

Please stop doing manual archives, large removal of text is red flag indicator of vandalism, MiszaBot I has been set up do the archiving when discussions have become old, which is 21 days after last comment. If editors wants to close a discussion then please use {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. Gnangarra 02:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)