Talk:Ugg boots

Improvement of the article

First I think it would be good to get one fact straight. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform: [1] .

Going over the article as it stands, section by section, I notice:

Article title and hatnote: There is no reason whatsoever that the article title would need to change if it is solely concerned with the generic item of footwear, even assuming that it the generic item of footwear only exists in two countries (and that is not a safe assumption to make, as explained later). As an example, cassowaries only exist in Australia and New Guinea. However, the Wikipedia article for these birds is Cassowary, not Cassowaries in Australia and New Guinea. Note that at [2] , it is stated “...over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed” and “Remember that concise titles are generally preferred.” It is also stated that “If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.” As ugg boots (the generic article) existed under that name long before the granting of any trademarks for similar names, they are obviously the primary topic. It is to be noted here that a Wikipedia article for the trademarked boots already exists at UGG Australia, a name sufficiently different from the name of the generic article that there should be no possibility of confusion, and all that would be needed is a hatnote in case any editors land at the wrong article by mistake. The hatnote currently on the page is good, and although logically a corresponding hatnote should be placed at UGG Australia, a minor correction of that article (which at the moment seems to studiously avoid referring to the manufacturer’s ugg boots as ugg boots) would be all that is really necessary.

Lead: The first paragraph is good, concise and accurate. The second paragraph is unncessary, dealing with a peripheral issue more thoroughly covered in an article where it is of more than peripheral relevance.

History section: This could do with some more specific references and (in its latter sections) less advertising material. While it is relevant that Deckers manufacture a brand of ugg boots, their sales figures are less relevant.

Design section: This is fairly good as it stands, but could perhaps do with expansion.

Trademark dispute section: As this takes up about half the article it is far too long, especially considering it is no more relevant to an encyclopaedic article than the animal welfare considerations in the subsequent section, and is exhaustively covered at the cited main article, UGG Australia, where it is of more relevance than it is to Ugg boots. The section should be pruned drastically to a summary of the main article at UGG Australia.

Concern for animals: This is also of only peripheral relevance to the boots themselves. The first paragraph is unsourced and inconsistent (the “animal liberation movement” of the first sentence may be the “group” of the second, but this is nowhere made clear). The second paragraph seems salvageable, even though its only sources are an article which looks more designed to make Pamela Anderson look silly than to explain her animal welfare views, and is from a source which is well known for its economy with the truth; and what seems to be an article in an on-line college newspaper.

Lastly, on the trademark defence issue: So far, I’ve seen references to the trademark having been defended in the courts of four countries: successfully in the United States and the Netherlands, and unsuccessfully in New Zealand and Australia (their place of origin). Until such time as the courts of any other countries make rulings, any extrapolation to bolster those numbers would be at best original research, or even synthesis: [3] . So it is totally inappropriate to claim that any readers, other than the approximately five per cent of the world’s population who live in the United States or the Netherlands, have had such a decision made by their judiciary on their behalf. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cassowary" is a completely bogus example. To demonstrate how bogus it is, there would need to be a brand of commercially produced birds, sold as pets everywhere else in the world, called the Cassowary®. An enterprising bird breeder from Australia would need to take a few of them to California, sell them as pets, start breeding them in California, and trademark the word in 25 countries, then sell his company to a larger American bird-breeding corporation, which would then need to embark on a massive brand awareness and marketing campaign, and extend the trademark registration to over 100 countries. The Cassowary® would then need to be endorsed by such influential celebrities as Oprah Winfrey, Kate Hudson and Sarah Jessica Parker. The Cassowary® would need to appear through product placement in more than a dozen popular films and TV series in the U.S., with brand awareness thereby spreading throughout the world. And the English Wikipedia would therefore need to carefully distinguish between the wild, native cassowary bird that lives in Australia, and the millions of domesticated Cassowary® birds that live in upscale homes and luxury condos throughout the U.S., Europe and Japan.

It is to be noted here that a Wikipedia article for the trademarked boots already exists at UGG Australia, a name sufficiently different from the name of the generic article that there should be no possibility of confusion ... Sorry, but the term "UGG Australia" refers to the company. In almost all countries, the registered trademark is UGG®. A few countries also have UGG Australia® as a trademark, but the most common trademark by far is UGG®. There is an enormous likelihood of confusion when talking about the brand UGG®, which refers principally to boots. Are we talking about "ugg boots," or "UGG® boots"? It's hard to tell, especially when "®" is silent when spoken, and rarely used when written; and UGG, when written, is almost always written as "Ugg." It's a disambiguation nightmare, Dave.

Lead: The first paragraph is good, concise and accurate. The second paragraph is unncessary ... What part of WP:LEAD don't you understand, Dave?

Trademark dispute section: As this takes up about half the article it is far too long ... Please take a good, long look at the Budweiser article, Dave. That article is stable because the trademark disputes were ironed out long before there was a thing called Wikipedia. We should strive to emulate it. The first half is disambiguation, and describes what the generic term means. The second half describes the trademark disputes. Our situation differs because there are a lot more reliable sources about the UGG trademark disputes, and WP:WEIGHT requires us to apportion space in the article based on representation in those reliable sources worldwide, not on what you believe and understand from your chats with your friends and neighbors in New Zealand, Dave.

So it is totally inappropriate to claim that any readers, other than ... the United States or the Netherlands, have had such a decision made by their judiciary on their behalf. Wrong again, Dave. We have reliable sources showing that "ugg boots" is used as a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. And we have no reliable sources showing its use as a generic term by anyone anywhere else in the world, besides lawyers who are hired by counterfeiters and trademark infringers. It isn't just the U.S. and the Netherlands, Dave. There have also been trademark disputes in other countries, including Singapore[4] and China,[5] where 17% of the world's population lives, and the United Kingdom,[6] where three people were actually thrown in prison for contempt — for continuing to infringe the trademark on a massive scale, after a court order to stop. In each and every case, Deckers has won; in each and every case, advocates of the generic term have failed and have been punished severely. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would turn out differently anywhere else, except Australia and New Zealand. The only countries where the generic term has prevailed are Australia and New Zealand.

I'm truly sorry, Dave. But you represent the 0.4% of the world's population that lives in Australia and New Zealand. The other 99.6% have the word "UGG" trademarked. The other 99.6% experience celebrity endorsements, product placements in films and TV shows, and a bombardment of strategically placed advertising. You're shoveling sand against the tsunami here, Dave. Give it up. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That could have been better said. However, I think the trademark section is important, as it is an important aspect of ugg boot history wherever one stands. That said, I do think that the current way it is broken down emphasises the US and Dutch court cases over the Australian one. While the US case is important, as it adds a counterpoint to the Australian one, the Australian case is the one with all the discussion in the media. The Dutch case is a bigger problem, though, as it is relatively minor compared to the other two, and I still feel it is only of limited value in that section as it is primarily about counterfeiting, with the "generic" argument being used as a poor defence. Thus the extended quotation gives it greater weight than it warrants within that section. - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we've focused for too long on the Australian press, which understandably slants the coverage of the subject in a particular way, and on one article in The Independent (UK) which is also heavily slanted in favor of the Australian POV. There's a lot of other press out there that the Aussies may find inconvenient, and my postings on this page have only scratched the surface, Bilby. For example, you believe the Dutch decision to be "relatively minor" and "of limited value," but on the mainland of Europe, several reliable sources clearly disagree. This decision was big fashion news there.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (Some of these news stories and all three of the court opinions were "mirrored" on several other Dutch websites.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add - the reason why the US case seems to have more weight that the Australian one is the use of the heading "Trademark disputes in U.S. and Europe". It makes the Australian case appear to be just background to the US one, which is incorrect. If that section title was removed, and the Dutch case limited to a sentence or two, I think the balance would be better. - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, due to the many citations of Dutch media above, I think you'll agree that if "the Dutch case [is] limited to a sentence or two," it would show a bias in favor English language sources. For years, this article showed a very clear bias in favor of Australian sources (and one British source that was favorable to the Australians). At long last, this article is approaching full compliance with WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can come up with many more articles - in Australian and international press - about the Australian case, and most (all?) of those Dutch examples aren't even general press, so much as specialised legal sites. But that's not the point. The point here is that the Dutch case, with an expansive quote currently in the article, is predominately about counterfeiting. This is a valid case and should be discussed on Wikipedia, but the trademark dispute section is not about counterfeiting, but the use of the generic term. The generic term issue made a showing in the Dutch case, and warrants a mention, but was a minor part of a case primarily about the passing off of a product as a Decker's boot. Thus only a small part of that case is related to the trademark situation, and the bulk is a separate issue that should be treated accordingly - and would be best treated on the Decker's or UGG Australia articles. This article should be about ugg boots in general, and thus should cover Deckers where that is relevant to a general discussion, and I agree that it warrants solid coverage. But Deckers specific material should go in a Deckers specific article, of which there are already two. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, I respectfully suggest that in the Dutch case, the fact that counterfeit UGG boots were made by a Melbourne, Australia manufacturer (probably Jumbo Ugg) who actively marketed them in Europe is of enormous significance for this article. The fact that the generic term defense (previously used only in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) was used in the Dutch case is also of enormous significance for this article. The Australian press (plus the very sympathetic article in The Independent, together described hereafter as the "pro-Aussie press") occupied almost the entire Ugg boots article for years. Even with the current allocation of space, the pro-Aussie press still occupies the entire first half of the article. The Dutch case occupies only one paragraph plus a blockquote, in the second half of the article. Remember that weight is apportioned not just by the amount of space, but also by prominence of placement, and the first half of the article is very prominent placement. The pro-Aussie press is still receiving a very generous apportionment of space and placement per WP:WEIGHT.

Furthermore, "most of those Dutch examples" don't simply reprint the court orders. There are legal news sites that cover new developments in intellectual property law. There are also fashion sites. We're not talking about some obscure, tiny little parcel of the human experience, such as origami or stamp collecting. We're talking about fashion and the law. As far as I can tell, there are no women at all participating on this page except Hapamama. There are a lot of women who find fashion-related subjects very fascinating. Hapamama represents the concerns of half of the English Wikipedia's readers. The legal battles are also of interest. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we're never going to agree on this, I'm afraid. In regard to the first half of the article, it covers two topics. The first is the history of ugg boots. As this history is about how they were invented in Australia, saying that this is pro-Australia is an odd reading. It also has extensive material on Decker's, covering, by name, celebrities who endorsed their products - if anything comes out of reading that section it is a positive view of Decker's. Nevertheless, I'd be open to a discussion at the way that section should be written. The second topic, on the design, is completely independent of everyone.

In regard to the Dutch case, my point remains the same. It is worth mentioning. But the issue worth mentioning is that the argument that "ugg" is a generic term was used as a defence in the case. The rest of the material - especially the extensive quote - is irrelevant to that particular issue. It is relevant to the counterfeiting of UGG Australia boots, of course, and still warrants coverage somewhere, but not in this particular part of the article.

Perhaps, though, we need to look to some means of dispute resolution, as this doesn't seem to be progressing. We're just making the same points back and forth. - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Third Opinion and the RfC were necessary steps in the dispute resolution process. Next is mediation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, as you say, the fact that we are never going to agree with P&W is why I have dropped out of this discussion. I have said my piece and I pretty much completely agree with Dave above. We've got an entry for Ugg Australia. This should primarily be a concise article about the generic object without being full of Deckers disclaimers about who thinks what about the ownership of the name.Mandurahmike (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that mediation would be inappropriate, considering that the balance of opinion here runs against P&W's vision for this page. A better solution would be for P&W to accept this obvious consensus, and focus his energies on something else, in my opinion. — e. ripley\^talk 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

←

→ It appears to me that opinion is about 50/50 on this page. Hapamama, Factchk, IainUK and LAEC have supported me. Ripley, the reason I'm not caving in is that you don't have consensus; and that consensus, even if you had it, can't defy Wikipedia policy. Mediation would help you see that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Phoenix in his argument. I also feel that it is important that a woman's voice is heard as P&W stated above. I want to add how there have also been many arbitrations against counterfeiters use of Deckers' trademark UGG in their domain name. When a consumer types in the word UGG into search engine they are looking for an UGG Australia product and because people view UGG as a brand when they see this word in a domain name they believe they are buying the true article instead they receive an counterfeit product. [15] (Hapamama (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

I don't agree with P&W's argument. And why is it important that a woman's voice is heard? If it is then hear me. When I type Ugg into a search engine I'm looking for all my possible options for buying lovely lambswool boots. And luckily that doesn't mean I'm limited to just one brand. Donama (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you type in UGG then you find sites that are posing for UGG Australia and are poaching their popularity. They are purposefully using this brandname to trick people into buying their counterfeit product. They copy the official site, images and media while using lower prices to get people to buy their poorly made boots that could be infringing on environmental, and human rights laws. If you want options you will not find them with a search using UGG. If you want options then you should search for lambswool boots. (Hapamama (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC))

Many site are legally using the term Ugg, they are not counterfeit, they are not tricking people, they are not infringing on enviromental rights nor are they infringing on human rights(maybe if they're making them China, Phillipines, Vietnam they could be). And whats more such counterfieting of UGG Australia brand is only relevent to UGG Australia and Deckers it has nothing to do with generic "Ugg boots". This article is an encyclapeadic article about the style of boot not solely about the product manufactured/marketed by Deckers(note:that doesnt mean excluding coverage of either either). Such sweeping accusations and claims only shows that mediation is pointless because some people have no intention of making an honest attempt to resolve this dispute, nor will they voluntary abide by any resolution. Gnangarra 13:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not Wikipedia's problem. Or mine. If I want to buy generic brand ugg boots that's my prerogative. Donama (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hapamama, you certainly have a remarkable list of contributions! It's a rare contributor whose very first edit is to start a discussion page for an AfD. Anyway, you say If you type in UGG then you find sites that are posing for [sic] UGG Australia and are poaching their popularity. You don't surprise me at all. That's the joy of search engines: you get all sorts of crap hits. (And if you think Google is bad, try this outfit for, say, "obama".) When I -- in Japan, as it happens -- google for "ugg", my top hit happens to be snugaustraliauggboots.com.au, many (all?) of whose pages clearly tell the reader Please note, we are not affiliated in any way with the Deckers Outdoor Corporation and their "Ugg Australia" brand. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I've submitted the article for formal mediation here and I've named Gnangarra, Factchk, Bilby, Hoary and myself as the main participants. Others are also welcome to participate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Trademark Dispute Hatnote

There are some serious problems with the content and placement of this statement, placed at the fore of the Trademark Section:

The UGG trademark has been the subject of dispute in several countries. As a result the term "ugg" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia. Thus Australian and New Zealand manufacturers continue to market ugg-style sheepskin boots under their own brands using the word "ugg."[21] Outside Australia and New Zealand, the UGG (written in capital letters) brand of ugg boots is a registered trademark of Deckers Outdoor Corporation.”

First of all, the statement that the term “ugg” has been removed from the registry isn’t true. I assume this is attempting to refer to the 2006 decision which removed a trademark “UGH-BOOTS” for non-use. Deckers UGG Australia mark is still on the books and valid in Australia (IP Australia Reg. 785466). Furthermore that mark is not only used for sheepskin boots but for all types of footwear, including leather shoes, sandals and boots, knit boots, apparel, handbags and accessories.

If I understand it correctly, the intent of inserting this statement was to attempt to distinguish the usage of the term in AU/NZ from its usage internationally. When a word has 2 meanings, it is best to indicate the 2 meanings up front and then discuss each meaning in more detail below. A statement that accurately describes the purpose of the article belongs in the main lead. Why on earth is it relegated to the bottom of the article? Put it where it belongs. What is the point of clarifying the meaning of the word in the middle of the entry? The entry should be at the top of the article and should be: “In Australia and New Zealand, “ugg boot” is a type of sheepskin footwear. In the rest of the world, UGG is a trademark for footwear, apparel, handbags and accessories.”--Factchk (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to promote the trademark interests of a company. I imagine the companies concerned can fund their own websites and explain the details of their trademarks, and ensure that other organizations do not infringe; they should not use Wikipedia for their campaign. This article is about a particular style of boot and the interests of a company are not relevant in the lead. Any errors in the article should, of course, be corrected with a reliable source (although undue detail should be omitted). Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to that opinion, John, but several other editors on this page clearly disagree. Wikipedia policy also disagrees with you. This article does not promote the trademark interests of a company. If it did, it would exclusively describe the word "UGG" as a trademark, and conceal the fact that in Australia and New Zealand, it is a generic term. This article reports the facts, both neutrally and dispassionately. It is a fact that 90-95% of the worldwide sales of ugg boots are made by one company. Avoiding any discussion of that company, or focusing only on the one or two cases where its tiny Australian competitors were victorious, would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The lede needs to be substantially expanded per WP:LEAD, but the body of the article is good. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So John says Wikipedia is not here to promote the interests of Deckers yet you disagree, Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this. If you want to promote Deckers do it at your own expense on your own websites, if you dont like Wikipedia having an article on Ugg boots that isnt about Deckers then do what Deckers has always done, take us to court and try to get it changed. Gnangarra 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for fighting battles, no matter how worthy the cause. The correct attitude on this page is that we do not care about matters like "where its tiny Australian competitors were victorious" because this is not a legal journal documenting the struggles of a company against its competitors, both legal and illegal (counterfeiters). If you want an article on such matters, please create it under an appropriate title and argue the case for the article's retention based on its notability (are there good sources showing that the legal struggles are of general encyclopedic interest?). The current situation is most unsatisfactory because this article is kept due to the notability of this style of boot, and it is unreasonable to convert the article to some kind of legal defense or marketing promotion.

The persistence shown by those promoting the trademark interests of a company may triumph in the short term because disinterested editors cannot spend an hour every week cleaning out the puffery, but in a year some new editors will arrive and implement Wikipedia's style by eliminating all promotional verbage. It would be desirable for that to happen sooner rather than later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying John is pretty obvious but needed saying. In essence the uninvolved volunteer from the RFC agrees with this too, yet still we have commercial interests being pushed here in an effort to override Wikipedia policy (eg. WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV). Is it possible to create some kind of formal consensus to establish a baseline and avoid future destabilisation of the article from commercial interests? Donama (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again it is not promoting a brand to state plainly that there are different usages. I believe this sentence was inserted as an attempt to do that, however it is inaccurate and misplaced. How does it promote anything to clear up factually what a term is and is not? Since the usage of "ugg" in reference to anything other than a brand is limited to AU/NZ we have to clarify the purpose of this article from the start.

Moreover, that information must be correct and accurate. We need to state facts plainly and simply and as constructed now, the article fails to do so.--Factchk (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Factchk, please propose an edit that would be factually correct. We need to replace the following sentence:

As a result the term "ugg" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia.

Please draft another sentence that replaces it, provide a reliable source to support it, and we'll ask an admin to make the edit. That's how it has to be done, because the article is protected. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Factchk: There is a dispute about whether certain kinds of edits are undue promotion, and out of place in this article. Your arguments would be more convincing if you were not a single purpose acount with an interest in inserting trademark issues in this article. As I have said before, any errors should be corrected (or the text omitted if undue), and any text which unduly promotes competitors should be ruthlessly removed, in the same way that we should remove any attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the name of a company or its brands. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you've made that argument many, many times and the rebuttal has also been successfully made many, many times. Factchk is not editing the mainspace. If he has a COI, the way around it is for him to participate only on the Talk page. Even with a COI, he has every right to participate here, and recommend edits on this Talk page. Getting the facts straight about which trademark was voided in Australia is perfectly appropriate, as you have just admitted. Obeying WP:WEIGHT is not an attempt to promote a brand, but to obey Wikipedia policy. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, one of the most fundamental policies at Wikipedia. Right now, the article satisfies WP:NPOV and you are suggesting a return to institutional POV-pushing, John. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Factchk is not editing the mainspace." In fact he/she has edited the article numerous times; I just looked at his/her contributions list and he/she has made over 20 edits to the Ugg boots article, just on the first page. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ancient history, Dave, he has STOPPED editing the mainspace quite a long time ago, in response to claims that he has a COI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasnt claims of COI it was a self admission of COI during a request for the unblocking of one of his sockpuppets. Gnangarra 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Information from an independent secondary source

Having had half an hour spare today I had a hunt around the library and found this information:

"Not content with stubbies, Australia was responsible for introducing another oddity to the New Zealand wardrobe in the 1970s. According to the Australian Magazine (July 10-20, 1997), in 1965 John Arnold of Adelaide came up with the idea of lambskin boots for winter surfers. The appropriately named ugh boot soon spread to Sydney, selling 1500 pairs a week. Before long it had reached New Zealand, and diversified from the surfing fraternity to become a cliché of suburban style. In recognition, New Zealand Post saw fit to include the ug (no 'h' here) boot in its Kiwiana stamp series in the year 2000."

p. 39, "The Way We Wore: the clothes New Zealanders have loved", Richard Wolfe, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2001.

No mention whatsoever of a trademark here, and something like 30 years before Deckers ever made an ugg boot (under any spelling). I'd be interested if anyone had access to the original Australian Magazine article as well. This also deals to the claim that there is a dispute between Australia and New Zealand about the boots' origin (I've never heard of them being claimed by New Zealand as one of this country's own inventions).Daveosaurus (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Return to the page

I just returned to this page. I assumed that this issue had been resolved and I am shocked that the dispute was turned down for being too "new" - I myself had commented that Ugg refers to a brand name more than a year ago. Seems like we are bending over backwards trying to be fair to New Zealand and Australia and their niche definition when in all the rest of the worlds population deems it a brand name for a sheepskin boot. Deckers even has the global trademarks to prove it but still everyone keeps arguing. Why? If someone is researching the boots in the USA or Europe or China they should know that Ugg is a brand name and that only that brand can actually put "Ugg" on their footwear. If people research on Wikipedia they would learn this - which seems very fair. No one wants to try to buy online and then find that customs has confiscated an illegal shipment. Phoenix and Winslow has provided so many references to this end, the fact is that 95% of the world knows Ugg is a brand name and five percent are just fighting the facts. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So how would you care to resolve it, Middlemarch2256? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several single purpose accounts who like to work on this topic in order to put right the problem that some readers may not be get the message regarding the branding associated with this article. That is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, although some modest statements regarding the company and its brand may be suitable. The problem is that those promoting the company want to overdo it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again I am led to wonder whether it's time to open a WP:SPI and sort this out once and for all. — e. ripley\^talk 13:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Current state of the article.

Starts a lot better than it used to, but then becomes an essay about Deckers and court cases. All the stuff about the trademark dispute could be summed up with something to the effect that there has been a dispute with different results and a short explanation. The giant block quotation about the La Cheapa court case belongs on the UGG Australia page. The focus of the article disappears midway through. Once again, the article is trying to be two completely contrary things at once. Simplification of this would create a much more encyclopaedic tone for the article. State the facts, provide hatnotes in sections and let people decide for and educate themselves at the appropriate articles.

I also don't mind the mention of how Deckers has caused an explosion in the popularity of the boot, but the annual income doesn't of Ugg Australia doesn't really gel with the tone of the article to that point either. It's even contradictory with the article hitherto having been about the style of boots when suddenly we get "Deckers' actions to promote their product "led to an exponential growth in the brand's popularity and recognizability.". Brand info belongs on the brand page. The brand is "Ugg Australia", not "Ugg Boot".Mandurahmike (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is without the trademark dispute, Ugg boots would fail notability so it needs to be appropriately covered. Counterfiet issues and sales volumes are Ugg Australia topics not the style. The condition of the article back in May/june was better than it is now, what this article is focused on now is substancially original research based on court documents, what needed is for the SPA to recognise that there is a difference between ugg boots the style and ugg boots the brand. Unfortunately that goes against what Deckers is spending condiserable amounts of money to make happen. Gnangarra 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the dispute is about whether there is any generic usage at all (certainly Deckers position is that there is not), I think the trademark issue should be treated in this article in some fashion. However I agree that it's way overblown at the moment. — e. ripley\^talk 13:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I agree it should be mentioned, but it's overblown with extra details that belong on the UGG Australia page rather than here. Also, we've got two court cases presented to counterpoint each other and highlight "the debate", but they are basically about different things. The first is about the generic usage of the term "ugg" the second is about deliberate attempts to knock-off Deckers styles and designs. Completely unrelated issues with the second (systematic cloning of SPECIFIC Deckers designs, whatever they may be named), in my opinion, having absolutely no place in this article70.189.214.56 (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your capitalization of "Ugg", Gnangarra: Do you mean "ugg" or "UGG" -- would ugg boots not be notable without the trademark dispute, or would UGG (aka UGG Australia) boots not be? (I'd have thought that both would be: ugg boots because they're a recognizable style with a moderately interesting if murky history; UGG boots because they're churned out in large quantities.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots is ugg boots is ug boots is ugh boot unless they're UGG boots, this article is about ugg boots and UGG boots with UGG Australia solely about UGG brand related issues(sales,counterfeits,marketing etc). Wikipedias basis of notability is that someone writes about them, ie creating multiple sources independent of the subject the only reason there are multiple sources independent of the subject is because of the trademark dispute, if Deckers wasnt so gungho about taking everybody to court we'd only have an article about Deckers Outdoor Corporation with a section about UGG Australia where the biggest issue would have been about using real skins. Gnangarra 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)