Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Trademark Revisions

I researched and revised the Trademark section, added references, took out a few things that could not be verified, added new material concerning the trademark controversy, IP Australia’s response to the controversy, and the various how-to-spot-fakes blogs and videos that are prevalent on the net.--Factchk (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is there all that promotional detail in the Trademark section? Why does the Trademark section exist (is there a reliable source indicating that the issue is somehow encyclopedic)? I see no reason to keep the section which is something that I would expect to see on a manufacturer's website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove promotional detail or text that pushes any point of view more heavily than others. The rest is reasonably encyclopaedic detail although I didn't check all the references and perhaps some of it is too verbose/long-winded. The fact that people infringe on trademarks or copyrights is not Wikipedia's problem to discuss endlessly in articles, but that of the holder of the trademark. All Wikipedia needs to say is that yes the trademark has existed and continues to exist, being upheld to lesser or greater degree in various parts of the world. Donama (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The trademark section in this article seems to be necessary given the very unique circumstances surrounding the term "ugg". "Ugg" means very different things inside and outside of Australia. It is a type of sheepskin boot within Australia, but outside of Australia it is a brand name. People who come to the article may be looking for info on the UGG brand or on the type of sheepskin boot made in Australia. Readers that are only aware of one of these "entities" might be confused without the benefit of the trademark section. I believe it is necessary. Erehwon36 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal For Non-Use

I made some minor modifications to the Trademark section in order to clarify the facts of the case. The entry had stated that the McDougalls asked IP Australia to rule on whether “ugg” was a generic term. In fact, reading Ian Thompson’s decision, they made no such request of the Officer. You can see this on the very first page. What they actually requested was that the 1971 Trademark that Deckers had purchased in 1995 be removed for non-use, rather than being a generic. Its similar to how Al Capone was sent to prison for not paying his taxes. Ian Thompson held this to be true and it is indicated such under the heading, “decision.” This is backed up by the Fact Sheet issued by IP Australia in 2008, summarizing the events. Here it states, “The registrar determined that the trade mark had not been used in Australia within the three year period ending November 30, 2003 and was therefore removed from the register.” That the McDougals won the decision is not in question, I just seek to clarify what the suit was focused on.

Since the case concerned Deckers usage of the term, Ian Thompson’s statement that “ugg” was a generic term had no bearing on the decision itself. In legal terms this is called “dicta.” It is outside information or opinion mentioned in the brief but which is not a part of the decision itself. Therefore, Thompson’s statement of “ugg” being generic was his own opinion and does not have any bearing on the trademark nor can it be cited as precedence in future hearings. If that is Thompson’s opinion then, true or not, it cannot be included in a section on the trade mark since a personal aside from the Officer has as much bearing on the trade mark itself as his favorite footy team.

The use of this quote in the article near the word “ruling” makes it appear, incorrectly, that Thompson ruled that “ugg” was generic. The decision heading of the Thompson’s report does not mention “ugg” being generic. Moreover, the IP Australia Fact states explicitly, “The question of whether the term UGG of UGH is generic has not been considered by the courts.” [1] Moreover the proper term for these decisions is a holding. The Officer did not “rule,” he “held.”

I think this has been stated before but I feel the IP Australia Fact sheet is about as close as it gets to an impartial, secondary source on the trademark dispute. It is a better, more concise summary of the outcome of legal actions. It is from an impartial government institution which felt the issue was notable enough to warrant a statement. Moreover it makes mention of not only this case but several pertaining to the use of UGG and its variations as a trademark. It is a concise synthesis of all the relevant legal activity regarding the trademark in Australia. It is neutral and accurate which makes ideal for Wikipedia mission to provide unbiased, third-party information to the general public.--Factchk (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted a portion of your edit, which removed valid and properly-sourced information that has the support of a consensus of editors. If you want to change something that's properly sourced, then you'll need to provide your own secondary source that supports your conclusions, which basically serve to try to water down the meaning of the rulings. A court's fact sheet is not a secondary source. — e. ripley\^talk 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole section is a bit of a mess and it's going to take me time to go over it. The problem is, there are a number of different trademarks including UGG and UGH. The origin and fates of the different marks are all different and the article currently makes no distinction between them just saying "reigstered the name" without clarifying which name. As far as I can tell from my brief perusal, UGH was revoked for non-use while UGG was revoked for being generic, but I need to go over the sources much more carefully. GDallimore (Talk) 15:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have other secondary sources that conflict with the information in the article, by all means bring them forward. Thanks for your edits. — e. ripley\^talk 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I'm talking about the sources that are being used already. The section of the article as currently written is bad because it does not properly reflect the sources. It doesn't help that the main source being used fails to make distinctions between the various trademarks that have been registered. For example, Steadman registered the mark "UGH-Boots", not UGG, but the Independent report completely fails to mention that and it's just plain confusing as it's currently set out in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I did. However, we're now moving into the area where editors are taking it upon themselves to interpret court decisions and intent, possibly skirting the bounds of policies against original research. This is exactly why secondary sources are preferred, because they are trusted to provide analysis of and context around primary sources, where our own analysis may be inappropriate or lacking in context.

Can you be more specific about where our text is not supported by the sources the article is using at present? If that's the case then I'd certainly want it fixed, but I am not seeing anything that's not supported at present. Maybe I'm missing something. — e. ripley\^talk 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing what I said you're missing. There are several different trademarks for several different things. "Ugg", "Ugh", "Ugh-Boots", "Ugg Australia", pictorial marks, etc etc all of which need separate consideration. The Independent report does not mention or distinguish between these marks at all and since the article is primarily based on that one source, the article does not distinguish between them either and is consequently a bit of a mess. The other sources DO distinguish between the different marks, but then it suddently becomes very complicated as to the different origins and fates of these different marks. The article does not represent the sources "as a whole" because when read as a whole it's clear the situation is different from that suggested by the Independent news report alone.

I haven't tried making any edits on this point yet as there are a few very long sources for me to read first. Basically, I think everyone needs to go away and read the sources more carefully before making any more edits or disputing edits made by others.

In summary: the main problem is that the author of the Independent news report failed to mention some important facts and it's going to be necessary to go to other sources to fill in the blanks, but those other sources are complicated and lengthy. GDallimore (Talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

May I ask before we continue that you back away from what could be interpreted as a somewhat confrontational tone? "You're missing what I said you're missing" doesn't really add anything to anyone's comprehension and is particularly unhelpful immediately following "Did you read my comment?" My impression is that we have the same goals, but are talking past one another a bit, and that kind of tone doesn't help. My other concern, beyond folks reaching views that constitute original research based on their own reading of source material, is trying to ensure this section doesn't balloon to an unwieldy length. The article should explore relevant issues, but in a way that's as brief and understandable to laypeople as possible. — e. ripley\^talk 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we've come at this from two different angles. You are assuming that the article as it currently stands accurately reflects the sources being used. I am new to this article, so made no such assumption and, indeed, found that the very first sentence of the TM section contained information which was not in the cited source (the bit about selling stuff on the West Coast of the US). Having found that glaring OR right at the start, I have been going through the section with a fine tooth comb followed by a hatchet, at which point I discovered the glaring omissions mentioned above.

It is these omissions which appear to have led to this argument about whether the trademark was revoked for non-use or revoked for being "generic" (I use quotes because that's not the proper legal term). The answer to the argument appears to be that there are two (or more) separate trade marks which were revoked for two separate reasons and therefore the solution is to read the sources more carefully to work out exactly which one is which. I have started on that, but if everyone can do the same task then we can all be better prepared to work together to sort out the article.

My entire aim here is to ensure that the article reflects the sources accurately and there is a lot of work left before we can say we've done that.

My annoyance was caused because I had not realised you were assuming something that I believe is incorrect and so I found myself repeating a statement which I considered perfectly clear, but which I now realise was not clear to you given your different assumptions. GDallimore (Talk) 21:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, that the earliest sales in the U.S. were to California surfers is not original research, but you're right it wasn't in that particular article. I have now added an LA Times reference and reinserted the California bit. — e. ripley\^talk 12:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then the article was just plain wrong before, since it previously said Steadman was the one selling in California, not Smith. GDallimore (Talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that piece was from any article, I think it was an artifact of the text that was there before. — e. ripley\^talk 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another secondary source from The Mondaq Business Briefing[2] which uses the term "non use" instead of "generic." Also here is another article which concurs [3] with the non use terminology. And one last one for your consideration from Intellectual Asset Management Magazine [4].--Factchk (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really object to most of your edits in that section, but the two sources you provided seem counter to what you describe. The first does say "[w]hilst the decision of whether a trade mark is generic or has become generic as a result of improper use must be decided by the Australian Federal Court", which is fair enough, it goes on to say that the delegate "found that it was proper for him to consider the inherent capability of the term UGH BOOTS to distinguish because of the wealth of evidence filed by the Removal Applicants showing generic or descriptive use of the term". Perhaps I'm reading this differently, but it seems that the source is saying that the court will need to decide legally on whether or not it is a generic term, it was nevertheless an issue considered by the Registrar's Delegate in their considerations, on the grounds that the trademark may not properly distinguish the product if the term it uses is generic. Certainly there does seem to be a distinction being drawn between the process to determine if it is formally generic, but it seems to me - from my reading, anyway - that there was nevertheless a determination of sorts by the registrar, and there seems to be a similar descriptions in the other two sources. - Bilby (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look through these other items later today, but I must confess I'm not familiar with these publications or what their editorial standards are. That may be more about my own ignorance of Australian business publications, though. — e. ripley\^talk 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IAM is a specialist Intellectual Property magazine and therefore likely to provide the most accurate summary of all the available sources. I haven't read it yet, though. GDallimore (Talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Adults wear ugg boots

Apparently it's debatable as to whether adults wear ugg boots. I thought everyone knew that ugg boots are popular amongst all ages, but apparently not. Here are some sources that prove this obvious fact: http://www.tweedecho.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2168&Itemid=543 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/17/2929757.htm (Huey45 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

It looks like Donama has taken that section out. I actually think that's the best course. — e. ripley\^talk 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you people seriously think that adults don't wear ugg boots? What's next; scarves? hats? clothes in general? The article itself says that Kate Hudson, Sarah Jessica Parker and Pamela Anderson have all worn them. (Huey45 (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

Have you looked at Donama's edit? I think you have misunderstood me. Take a look at the diff -- Donama has taken out the entire section that basically speculates on what entire segments of the populace wear them (including kids, girls, whatever). I think that's the right approach. — e. ripley\^talk 00:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Global NPOV

My goodness this is an active board. I edited today to make clear that the article refers to sheepskin boots, known as "ugg boots" in Australia and New Zealand. Outside of Australia, of course, UGG is widely known as a brand. From the looks of this board I know this has been controversial, but facts are facts, mate. I'm lucky enough to have traveled the world. I understand that people in Australia consider "ugg" to be generic, but in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere, people know it as a brand. Probably because Deckers blankets them with advertising, but it is what it is.

I also added a link to my mate Shane Stedman's page. I know there are lots of external links in here and more are not welcome, but Shane doesn't get enough credit and he is still out there surfing and selling. He had a nice UGH brand back in the day in Australia. A real character, that one. Cheers. Erehwon37 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It really stretches credulity to envision that you are a brand new editor who has found your way almost immediately to these articles and already seem to understand what the abbreviation NPOV means after less than 25 edits. I'm half-tempted to open up a sockpuppet check request. — e. ripley\^talk 01:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Or indeed a WP:RFCU request for checking uggs. Now E. Ripley, it's entirely possible that our cheery new contributor is a fast learner. Here's his first edit. I quote one snippet of this complex, immaculately summarized edit: UGG Australia’s creative footwear designs, substantial marketing efforts and expenditures have resulted in the international consumer recognition that the UGG brand currently enjoys. (Pause for a round of applause for Deckers Corp and their advertisers.) Could it be that Wikipedia is experiencing these "substantial marketing efforts" rather more directly than it does for other footwear brands? -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You guys take this really personally. What, in particular, don't you agree with? Can you possible argue that the court in the Netherlands did not say that: "... the objection (to validity) will be stricken down. (Defendant’s argument is) that Australian companies, such as Jumbo Ugg believe that the word UGG is a generic name. One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia. ... In this litigation, therefore, the legitimacy of the brand is upheld. The court has no reason to doubt that (UGG) is a well-known brand in Benelux.” Deckers v. La Cheapa et al, Court Dordrecht, 74950 / HA ZA 08-2234, Netherlands. Guys, this is what the court said - not me, and not Deckers. Why won't you let this stay up in your article? I know you take this personally, but believe me, in the US, Europe and elsewhere outside of Australia people know UGG as a brand. Your refusal to accept this seems contrary to Wiki - you insist that your limited perspective from Australia should be adopted worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erehwon37 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you talk of my limited perspective from Australia, may I talk of your limited perspective from Deckers? Anyway, yes, people outside Australia know of UGG as a brand and they know of ugg as a style. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoary - you won't believe this, but cross my heart and hope to die I am not a Deckers employee. And again, what matter would it make if I were? Would that change what the court said in the above quote - why can't that stay up? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erehwon37 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me that you were a Deckers employee. But just what is your relationship to what you described as "UGG Australia’s [...] substantial marketing efforts"? Or how is it that you are so quick to cite the details of court cases? I too have no reason to doubt that "UGG" is a well-known brand in Benelux. Indeed, this article explicitly cites the court case that established that: In 2005, the validity of the UGG trademark was challenged in Federal Court in California; the courts ruled for Deckers, stating that consumers in the United States consider Ugg to be a brand name. A similar challenge was also rejected in the Netherlands. How is this inadequate? -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoary - if you are suspicious about my knowledge of the subject, can I also be suspicious of how you cite minute details of Australian court decisions, and change the article within 10 seconds after an edit? Are you the only one allowed to know everything about the trademark background, be apparently emotionally attached and spending way too much time on this article? I'll admit to being a trademark professional and interested in the subject - I know the background. What's your excuse? I also love the UGG brand - I'm a bit of a geek in that respect. I know way too much about the UGG brand. They are honest to goodness the most comfortable shoes I have ever worn. Like walking on a cozy cloud. You seem to take a pretty reasonable approach in your above comments, but contrarily don't seem prepared to allow the article to reflect this. In your above comment you state "Anyway, yes, people outside Australia know of UGG as a brand and they know of ugg as a style." Might you accept this in an intro to the article - "People outside of Australia recognize UGG as a brand"? That intro sentence would make the article better balanced in my view, and based on your comments you seem to accept this is true. Why not allow the article to state this? Anyhow, thanks for some level-headed discourse on this. Cheers. Erehwon37 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I only cite minute details of Australian court decisions when asked and given time to google for them. I know of changes to this article as it's on my "watchlist", and it's on my watchlist because it has long been the target of people with pronounced ideas (one way or the other) about Deckers, as well as very young editors (or drunks or whatever) who like to write about how good or bad looking they or their friends are when wearing uggs, or about the mental capacities or sexual proclivities or whatever of those who habitually wear them. Really, a stunning number of attempts have been made to add stupidity to this article. (I do not include you in this.) ¶ I have no attachment to uggs of any brand -- I've never owned a pair and (when I observe how quickly they deteriorate) have never wanted to. I have little or no attachment to any brand, unless perhaps the brand is funny, defunct, or (preferably) both: thus I have a soft spot for the "Lord Martian". ¶ You ask Might you accept this in an intro to the article - "People outside of Australia recognize UGG as a brand"? You may have a point here. I suggest that you think hard about how you want the intro to read, and then bring this up in a new thread below. -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ugg" as a brand name is a neologism and it would be unencyclopaedic to give the impression that "Ugg" is mainly a brand name. It was just a bunch of greedy businessmen stealing Australian culture for their profiteering when they started using this generic word as their brand name. "Ugg" has always been just a generic name for sheepskin boots. (Huey45 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Although we may disagree with the manner in which he/she has presented information, Erehwon37 is right. Outside of Australia, UGG means Deckers and people are passionate about the brand. The comments that UGH/UGG was always generic in Australia are not true. In 2004 IP Australia, the Australian Trade Mark Office looked into the issue and commented that the terms UGH-BOOTS and UGH were validly registered as trade marks by an Australian (Shane Stedman) in 1971 and 1982:

”Prior to registration, the Registrar of Trade Marks considers whether a trade mark has any descriptive or generic meaning that may make it unsuitable for registration. In the event that a mark passes this test, there is an opportunity for a concerned party to oppose registration on a range of grounds including a belief that the mark is generic. Based on information available at the time, the UGH marks were found to be suitable for registration and in the absence of any successful opposition actions wee subsequently registered.”[5]

We’ve talked about this source before, however I feel this sums up how Intellectual Property Australia views the original registration. Further, as I mentioned earlier, “ugh boot’ first appeared in an Australian dictionary in the 1980’s and was listed a trademark.[6] Huey45 you are misinformed. UGH was a brand 40 years ago, hardly a neologism. Also, it was two Australians, Shane Stedman and Brian Smith, that registered UGH in Australia and UGG in America. Both sold their businesses to Deckers, undoubtedly for a profit. So, let’s not make this issue about either greed or jingoism.--Factchk (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not correct, although often rumored on the web and on this board. Both the Australian and New Zealand trademark offices issued registrations for UGG (NZ) / UGH (Australia) in the 1970's (See AU 1971 registration No. 245,662 for UGH-BOOT, 1982 registration No. 373,173 for UGH, and New Zealand registration No. 99,794 for UGG in 1972). These registrations mean that the trademark offices in NZ / AU considered the issue and granted trademark registrations. Also, the US UGG brand began in 1978 and has built itself up slowly since then. UGG is known as brand around the world not because of some small Australian dealers, but instead because the UGG brand has spent decades and millions of dollars building the brand. Erehwon36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RFC - proposed edit - People outside of Australia recognize UGG as a brand

This board and article are the subject of extensive controversy regarding the general "inside of" and "outside of" Australia perspective on UGG. I did some editing on the subject a few days ago and had my username "erehwon37" suspended. I had some discussion on this board with Hoary afterward, and I very much appreciate his comments and perspective on the issue. Hoary suggested I open a new thread to discuss a fundamental edit to the article that I believe would find support, and that I believe would greatly clarify the article. The fundamental issue is that while "ugg boots" may be known as a generic term for sheepskin boots within Australia, UGG is widely recognized as a brand name outside of Australia. Some come to this article knowing that and understanding that the article is directed to "Australian ugg boots," but many others do not and are confused. The article is largely written only from an Australian perspective - you read the first three paragraphs and there is no mention of this very fundamental issue. The first three paragraphs essentially state that "ugg boots" are a generic type of sheepskin boot. Again, while Australians may see this as being the case, the rest of the world does not - in the US, for instance, there are multiple brands of essentially the same style of sheepksin boot - UGG happens to be the 900 pound gorilla in this market, but there are multiple other brands selling the same style sheepskin boot (Emu, Aussie Dogs, Madden, Skechers, Bearpaw, Koolaburra, Union Bay, and dozens of others). People in the US do not call this type of boot an "ugg boot", but instead call it a sheepskin boot and use UGG (or Emu, Skechers, Aussie Dog, etc.) as a brand name. I believe it would make the article much more objective and accurate (and would also greatly diminish the level of controversy) if an addition was made to the intro to explain this fundamental global perspective to readers. I propose including the following new intro (either as a sub-title or as intro sentences): "This article generally concerns the style of sheepskin boot which is generically known as an 'ugg boot' within Australia. Outside of Australia, UGG is known as a brand name." Maybe this should be expanded to include New Zealand as well? I also note some earlier discussion on the board regarding potentially changing the title to read "Sheepskin boots (known as 'ugg boots' in Australia)". I believe this would likewise be useful. I invite comments. Erehwon36 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sourcing to support your statement that people in the U.S. do not call sheepskin boots "ugg boots" or "uggs" generically? As an American, I can tell you that anecdotally people refer to them as "uggs" regardless of the brand. Also, you should know that creating a new account to circumvent an account ban is itself a blockable offense. The proper thing for you to do is to go back to your other account and use the unblock template, as it states on your talk page. Another admin will review your case and unblock the account if they think it's appropriate. — e. ripley\^talk 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A request for "sourcing" for that particular claim strikes me as rather ridiculous. Do people in the US call sheepskin boots "ugg (boot)s" or don't they? It's hard to say. What's much easier to say is whether they call them that when writing anything that Google can find. My impression is that they do so very little. (My guess is that this is because when they do, they promptly get complaints from some company hired by Deckers. But this is only a guess.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable if he wants to make that assertion somewhere in the article, which is how I read what he was suggesting. — e. ripley\^talk 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Erehwon, what makes you so special that you can just change the whole basis of the article to match your uninformed opinion when other people have already said exactly the same thing before? Just because some greedy thieves called their company "Ugg" doesn't mean it isn't still a generic name for those boots. The wording that you proposed would give the impression that Australians are calling it the wrong name, when really it's the other way around. (Huey45 (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

Huey45, I think you're getting carried away. (Just for starters, the company is called "Deckers", not "Ugg".) Now, is "ugg" a generic term for these boots outside Australia or isn't it? Google is our friend. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Deckers sell their boots under the name "UGG Australia" what clearer indication that Ugg Boots are Australian in origin than Deckers need to market themselves using Australia. either way this RFC should be closed as it was started by a sockpuppet. Gnangarra 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information on the Usage of UGG in the United States

Ripley, I understand you would like proof that UGG is considered a brand in the United States. If you go to page 6 of this document which is the California Court’s decision regarding UGG in the US you will see the following (the Plaintiff is Deckers, the Defendant is Koolaburra):

Defendant’s evidence fails to demonstrate that the term “UGG” is generic. Moreover, Defendants have ignored the survey evidence, submitted by both Plaintiff and Defendants, clearly demonstrating that the term is non-generic. Plaintiff submitted evidence of a “Teflon survey” conducted by Field Research Corporation, under the supervision of Dr. E. Deborah Jay. Jay surveyed 313 women, ages 18 to 45, each of whom either had purchased a pair of boots or casual shoes (excluding athletic footwear) that cost $100 or more in the past 12 months or expected to do so in the next 12 months. Declaration of Kent R. Raygor, filed January 25, 2005 (“Raygor Dec.), Ex. D, p. 1. Respondents were asked whether they considered the term “UGG” to be a “common name or a brand name.” Id. The data collected by Jay demonstrate that that “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, and not a common name.” Id. at p. 2. Therefore, Jay concluded that “the primary significance of the name or term UGG to women who are past or potential purchasers of boots or casual shoes that cost $100 or more is as a brand (and not a common or generic name).” Id. at p. 12. Michael Kamins, Defendants’ genericness expert, reached conclusions similar to Jay’s.(10) Kamins’ survey indicated that 57% of respondents recognized “UGG” as a brand, while only 6% considered it a common name. Kamins Dec., Table 1.

There is also a footnote at the bottom:

Although Kamins concedes at the outset of his declaration that Jay “used an accepted survey approach in her research” (Declaration of Michael A. Kamins, filed February 1, 2005 (“Kamins Dec.”), ¶ 9), he late complains that Jay’s study is inherently biased. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. After closely examining Jay’s report, the Court finds that her survey was fairly and scientifically conducted by impartial interviewers, under the supervision of a qualified expert, that the study used a sample of a relevant portion of potential consumers, that the questions upon which the results relied did not appear to be misleading or biased, and that the recordation of responses and assembly of data was handled in a completely unbiased manner.

We've used this source in the past and it is currently listed as a reference on the page. It is currently footnote #19.--Factchk (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that the text sourced by footnote 19 at present be sourced to a secondary source frankly, but the way it's presented now seems fine. Are you seeking to expand it in some fashion? Maybe I'm confused about what changes you're looking for here. — e. ripley\^talk 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

the primary significance of the name or term UGG to women who are past or potential purchasers of boots... why would you only mention women? Are you just picking and choosing evidence purely to suit your agenda? (Huey45 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

Huey45, why do you here ask about "you"? (We're told above that a California court cited such a survey, "conducted by Field Research Corporation, under the supervision of Dr. E. Deborah Jay".) -- Hoary (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then the people in court are the ones who are to blame. Either way, it's misleading and deceptive. Clearly they can't be trusted, since the selective inclusion and omission of information is a tell-tale sign of other discrepancies. (Huey45 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

I think that's jumping too far: the information was used in court as, I suspect, the key question was whether or not "ugg" was used as a generic term amongst those to whom the two companies were marketing it. This doesn't say either way whether or not the term is generic outside of that particular group of people, but I would see it is a valid point to raise in the case, and I have no reason to question the validity of the survey within its set parameters. How it fits into this article is a different question, though. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As the survey was undertaken on Deckers behalf we can only presume that the survey was of plaintiffs target market, we cant make any assumption as to the defendent. To use this survey beyond its part in the court case(the express purpose of the survey) would be a synthesis and a violation of no original research policy. Gnangarra 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't just be marketing it to women though. Ugg boots are popular amongst both men and women. (Huey45 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

1st section break

In response to your query, it fits into the article lead. It has been posted on this discussion page by several folks that there ought to be some recognition of the trademark meaning of UGG outside of Australia and New Zealand. The term UGG has different meanings in different countries and I think we can find a way to make this feasible without sacrificing the NPOV. But first we have to agree that there is a separate experience in the America/Europe/Asia than there is in Australia/New Zealand. The survey evidence that was presented to the California court by both sides, (the non-Deckers survey in the blurb above showed similar results) is a strong indicator that in America UGG is considered a trademark and not a generic term. The obvious reason that women were surveyed is that sheepskin boots (all brands) are exceptionally popular with young women. The California court also said on pages 8-9 that the evidence (extensive newspaper, magazine and TV coverage, Brand of the Year award, etc.) demonstrates that the UGG trademark is “extremely strong.”

Similarly in Europe, a Dutch court considered evidence on whether UGG was a generic term or a trademark in the Benelux countries, and found that UGG is a well-known brand in the Benelux. The link, which is listed in the articles references can be found here. At paragraphs 4.4 to 4.8 it reads:

La Cheapa argues that UGG and the word Uggs are not brand names. According to them, since 1933 they have been the classification for a type of boot. Therefore, the UGG brand offers no trademark protection. The court takes this objection as an appeal to illegitimate the brand on the grounds that is constitutes a generic type (Article 2.28 Paragraph 1 Sub c BVIE [Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property])

This objection may cause the brand UGG AUSTRALIA to fail because this is a word and logo combination and La Cheapa’s objection pivots on just the word UGG.

As for the UGG brand, the objection will be stricken down. La Cheapa’s motivation for this objection is, stated simply, that Australian companies, such as Jumbo Ugg believe that the word UGG is a generic name. One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia.

Moreover, La Cheapa acknowledge themselves, as a supplier, that UGG is a known brand in the Benelux. La Cheapa also indicated the same to websites visitors by promoting “100% authentic UGG Australia” making them think that the boots were the famous UGG brand and that they were not just sheep skin boots. All this undermines the argument that UGG is a generic name. In this litigation, therefore, the legitimacy of the brand is upheld.

The court has no reason to doubt that it is a well-known brand in the Benelux.

In May of this year, the UK footwear industry named UGG “Brand of the Year.”[7] The Ugg boot article should reflect the fact that UGG has different meanings in different countries. Surely, there is a place for this.--Factchk (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily reject this out of hand but much depends on how it's formulated. Can you please craft a proposal and post it here for discussion? — e. ripley\^talk 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Uggs-n-Rugs company is not mentioned by the source as a participant in the Australian court action, so I've removed it. The judge is not quoted in the source, so I've removed the quote. (see note below) Also, we don't just have a reliable source (The Los Angeles Times) reporting facts that its reporter has learned. We have one reliable source (LA Times) reporting what another presumably reliable source (The Dominion Post of Wellington, New Zealand) published that its own reporter has learned. We must rely not on just one layer of fact-checking by our sources, but two. It doubles the risk that somewhere along the line, someone got the facts wrong. This needs to be made crystal clear to the reader.

In general, there are two sides to any dispute, and we really should give both sides equal respect, wouldn't you agree? 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. Deckers acquired its intellectual property fair and square from Brian Smith, who apparently received fair compensation for his own development of the brand. And the workers in its factories deserve a paycheck just like the workers at Uggs-n-Rugs, wouldn't you agree? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Sorry, I was looking at the LA Times article, where the judge's quote did not appear. I've just read one of the articles in The Independent more carefully, and it does appear there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• P&W your should take more care in reading sources before changing content the source you says doesnt support the mention of Uggs-N-Rugs says;

As disbelief turned to defiance, local companies banded together to fight the legal challenge. It was a David and Goliath battle that, in a world buffeted by the chill winds of globalisation, they seemed certain to lose. But some stories have a happy ending, which is why Bronwyn and Bruce McDougall, owners of Perth-based Uggs-n-Rugs, are pinching themselves with delight today.

The McDougalls had appealed to the organisation that regulates trademarks in Australia, claiming that ugg - originally an abbreviation of ugly, so it is believed - was a generic term. Yesterday they received the news that the regulator, IP Australia, agreed. The name is to be removed from the register of trademarks. Local manufacturers can once again call their boots uggs.

as such I'll revert you edit. Gnangarra 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ok i see what happened recent editing added another source in to the paragraph where as the first source was attributed to the whole para and supported all of the paragraphs content, where as the new source didnt Gnangarra 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[ec]As I said, I was looking at the LA Times source, not The Independent. This is the middle of my work week, so I can't spend much time on this right now, but will take a closer look later. So far, it seems as though Deckers has been made out to be the bad guy for simply trying to protect its property. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's being made out to be anything. If you have issues with the text and whether or not it passes WP:NPOV, by all means discuss them. I don't wear uggs and I have nothing against Deckers (however I do have a problem with paid/COI editing); in fact I originally came here as a result of an RFC (or maybe it was 3O -- it's been so long ago, I forget). My only goal is that Wikipedia's policies be upheld and its readers properly served, so please be careful how you cast aspersions. It's also the middle of my work week, and we're all (presumably) volunteers, but that's no reason for sloppy editing or for making inappropriate accusations. — e. ripley\^talk 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I accuse no one, and I direct my comments to the quality of the edits rather than the motives of any editor on this article. So far, Gnangarra has exposed one honest mistake—derived from someone else adding a source to the end of a paragraph, causing me to read the wrong source. Honest mistake, right? Let's get our respective day jobs done for the day, and get back on this tonight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd section break

We seem to agree that Ugg is viewed differently in Australia/New Zealand. I’ve also noticed that the lead paragraph has an awful lot of information that is discussed fully later in the entry under their own subheading (Design, History, etc.). What if we eliminated that lead and instead put this:

This article is about a boot style in Australia and New Zealand. For the Brand see UGG Brand

Ugg Boots

There are two meanings for “Ugg.” Ugg is used generically in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a style of sheepskin boots. In the Americas, Europe and Asia UGG is recognized as a trademark UGG Brand. This article is about the boot style in Australia and New Zealand.

The article then continues on to fully describe the design and history of the style.--Factchk (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A lead is a summation of the high points of the article that comes after it. It is entirely appropriate for there to be some repetition. Your suggestion wouldn't pass muster; take a look at WP:LEAD. — e. ripley\^talk 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if Americans think "Ugg" is just a brand name? An encyclopaedia is the place to get it right. Imagine looking up a dictionary and finding a definition that said "this word means whatever you think it does". (Huey45 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

Not a problem Ripley that was a first draft. I’ll post a revised lead shortly. Thank you for the link and the opinion.

Huey45, Americans do care and that makes it significant. This is not an Australian encyclopedia, this is an English encyclopedia and if English speakers in North America, Europe and Asia consider Ugg to be a trademark then that should be reflected. --Factchk (talk) 14:24, 29 July 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.[8]

This is what US$7 million US$8 million in cleverly designed and placed marketing efforts will get you: a $100 million $689 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."[9] (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)

• (edit conflict)Jeep 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,[10] 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)