| Revision as of 12:48, 26 March 2013 editMandurahmike (talk | contribs)230 edits →Survey← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:51, 10 December 2024 edit undoJohnuniq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators86,664 editsm Reverted edit by 185.219.214.225 (talk) to last version by Qwerfjkl (bot)Tag: Rollback |
| (468 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Article history|currentstatus=GA|topic=Law |
|
{{GA nominee|17:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Law|status=onreview|note=}} |
|
|
|
|action2result=listed|action2=GAN|action2date=00:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)|action2link=Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/GA2|action2oldid=565405764 |
|
|
|action1result=failed|action1=GAN|action1date=15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)|action1link=Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/GA1|action1oldid=550111176 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
⚫ |
|archive = Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition == |
|
== Koolaburras Australian Trademarks == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you read about this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65624635 |
|
Koolaburra does not have any australian trademarks containing ug, UGG or ugh.--] (]) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
can this be added on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 08:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:The court transcript specifically mentions the judges statement about not addressing Koolaburra's australian trademarks. Thus it is irrelevant whether they have any or not as the court ruling was that if they have such trademarks they would not infringe Deckers trademark. As they are an American company I doubt it would be economical to manufacture separate labelling for Australia so this may be why they dont. ] (]) 08:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If the court doccument say "Koolaburra's australian trademarks" then the current language of "Koolaburra's "Ug" trademarks in Australia" is not correct or factual. --] (]) 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ugglebo Vs Deckers == |
|
|
|
|
|
This case was Dismissed in December of 2011. See:http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp |
|
|
--] (]) 23:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:That site has the court but no results. The page says "No Results Found." ] (]) 08:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You must not be searching correctly. Put in "Deckers" to search the case and you will find it. Under the documents you will see the latest doccuments which state "Dismissed"--] (]) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Same result. Nothing. ] (]) 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfc|econ|rfcid=9CA077C}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots?] (]) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
An editor is suggesting that the article '''should not''' be restricted to the genericity dispute. He feels the article leans too heavily towards ''Australian boot manufacturers and their disputes with ]'' and casts Deckers in ''a negative light'' when it should also include ] and ] disputes Deckers have been involved in. Specifically counterfeits. ] (]) 05:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This RFC has been publicized on the ] Talk page per ] guidelines.] (]) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:The editor has already admitted that "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: As several reliable sources (linked on the Talk page above) have noted, counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, therefore at least one example of a counterfeiting case should be included in ]. The lede of the ] article also identifies counterfeiting as trademark infringement, not copyright or trade dress. Let's get our terminology correct and then proceed. ] (]) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', the Ugg boots trademark dispute has been and remains a notable dispute, including counterfeits (a copyright dispute) would water down this article, leaving it as little more than another ] page. ] (]) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''NOTE:''' ] (Wayne) is an Australian editor, motivated by nationalist bias and resentment against Deckers for "stealing" the ugg boot, an "Australian icon." ] (]) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Although tangentially related (in terms of it being a trademark infringement), the proposed expansion of scope does not seem to fit under the article title. A mention in "see also" or "external links" would suffice. Alternatively, a hatnote could be added, though that might be a case of ]. ] (]) 13:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' inclusion of a single, highly notable counterfeiting case as an example. Several reliable sources, linked on the Talk page above, have identified counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. All of the trademark disputes that are already in this article involve Deckers. Adding one paragraph to describe one more case wouldn't water it down, any more than adding a thimble full of water to a beer stein would water that down. This was a compromise that was offered on the article Talk page, but rejected by an editor who is trying to ] it. ] (]) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Once one off topic case is added then others will follow. This is what happened to the Ugg boot article and eventually resulted in an RFC to exclude counterfeits there. ] (]) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not if we agree from the beginning that only one, highly notable example should be included here, with a link to other cases at ] should readers choose to learn more about them. ] (]) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's what you said before and it didn't happen. The example you want to include is not even "highly notable". A Google search for court cases brings up only three links for the Vaysman case in the first 100 results and all three were Australian legal websites. More than half of the results were for case numbers 11-cv-7970 and 12-cv-377 (against Chinese websites selling counterfeit Uggs) which were reported across worldwide media. ] (]) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(Transcluded) To the contrary, a Google search that is properly constructed (combining two key terms such as Vaysman and Deckers, or Hepbourne and Deckers) produces links to dozens of websites that report various stages of the case. It's highly notable. ] (]) 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', the counterfeiting topic is only pseudo-related. Its inclusion here would only serve to detract from the point of the article which is to demonstrate the conflicting views on TM vs generic.] (]) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''NOTE:''' ] is an Australian editor, motivated by nationalist bias and resentment against Deckers for "stealing" the ugg boot, an "Australian icon." He is also voting as an editor canvassed by ] (Wayne). ] (]) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Excuse me? Do you have anything other than strawmen and assumptions to contribute to Misplaced Pages? I've, off and on, been a contributor and editor of the main Ugg Boots article. Because I don't make it my life's work to hover over it like, you know, someone paid by a large corporation to push a company line, doesn't mean I've been canvassed if I decide a vote is worthy of my attention.] (]) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::If that's really the ] of the article, then it should have a very different title. I've suggested ]. ] (]) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have been told repeatedly. The title is the name used for the genericity dispute so it complies with WP:TITLE, quote:''The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct... forms.'' No one would search for this article using "Ugg boots genericity disputes", they would use "Ugg boots trademark disputes" and expect genericity disputes to be there. If they were looking for counterfeits then they would write counterfeit. If they came here from redirects in other articles they would know exactly what this page would be about as the other articles have trademark disputes sections which only discuss genericity which are separate from dedicated counterfeit sections. Move on. ] (]) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Don't tell me to move on. You don't ] this RFC, any more than you ] the article. Since you've voluntarily chosen the title ], other types of trademark disputes belong here. Perhaps the best argument supporting my position is your voluntary inclusion (without any prompting from me) of the Luda Productions case, which has absolutely nothing to do with genericity. It's a prior use case. According to your thinking, readers looking for that case shouldn't be able to find it here; they should run a search on "prior use." Also, other related articles (] and ]) have counterfeiting as a '''SUBSECTION''' of trademark disputes. |
|
|
::::Only one other type of product, ], has an entire article dedicated to its trademark disputes. And those have been far more notable, lasting from 1978 to 2006 and spawning four seperate enormous lawsuits between Apple Inc. and ], holding company for ] and owner of ]. Perhaps we should use that fact as a signpost for our future navigation regarding this topic. Not even ] has a separate article about its many, many trademark disputes. ] (]) 18:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Quote:''"related articles (] and ]) have counterfeiting as a '''SUBSECTION''' of trademark disputes."''<br />Well so they are!!!!! I would have sworn they had their own sections!!!!!!! That changes everything...'''OH WAIT....You edited both those articles yesterday to change the counterfeit sections to subsections of trademark disputes!!!!!!!'''. I'm actually not surprised as this is not the first time you have altered other articles to support your edits in disputes. ] (]) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::And you saw them yesterday after I'd edited them, edited one article yesterday (in the very subsection that was moved), and did not object ... until now. I wonder why. ] (]) 01:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Wonder no more. I didn't check what was edited and had no idea the sections had been changed. You get caught cheating and you try to spin it by making false accusations...typical. ] (]) 09:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Object''': At first I was leaning towards Support then saw what Wayne said to Pheonix about 'if a second is placed more will follow' and agree we don't want it getting out of hand, plus Oppose is the general consensus here. ] - ] 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' I really don't see why the additional counterfeiting issue shouldn't be included, per ]...--] 02:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''NOTE:''' MONGO is voting as an editor canvassed by ] for support. ] (]) 09:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Threaded discussion=== |
|
|
*The title is the name commonly used for the genericity dispute and is used correctly per ]. Counterfeiting and other disputes are not particularly notable and belong in the ] article. Inclusion would also require the addition of a section explaining ] laws which would give equal ] to a far less notable dispute. ] (]) 05:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, this article is ostensibly about whether "ugg boots" is a generic term? Amid that controversy, there have been court cases against alleged counterfeiters. The alleged counterfeiters have argued that they're simply using the generic term. The proposed expansion of scope for this article includes efforts by the American company to fight against counterfeiting, separate from the trademark dispute? ] (]) 16:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article is not about whether "ugg boots" is a generic term, this has been largely resolved by the court cases in this article. The article is about the trademark dispute itself which has had widespread media and legal coverage as a notable dispute. Counterfeiting should rightly be covered in the Misplaced Pages article for the branded product (i.e.:]). That counterfeiting is usually not mentioned in most brand articles is indicative that counterfeiting is not generally notable. The only notable case that involved both counterfeit and generic Uggs is in this article. |
|
|
:::Counterfeiters may have '''attempted''' to argue that they're simply using the generic term but a judge will not allow the argument to be used in court. A generic term defense is not applicable to counterfeit goods. |
|
|
:::Counterfeiting is a copyright dispute and as such a different set of laws applies. For example, the Lanham Act does not apply to foreign generic disputes but it does to counterfeiting. ] (]) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I dunno. According to Misplaced Pages, "Counterfeit products have a fake company logos and brands. In the case of goods, it results in patent infringement or trademark infringement." However, although counterfeiting may include trademark infringement, it doesn't include any dispute, and it doesn't seem to be related to '''the''' trademark dispute. Thus, although I can see shades of gray in this issue, I think you're basically correct. I think the article title should be changed first, if discussion of counterfeiting is going to be added. Readers will expect to find a specific controversy here. I'll summarize my arguments above. ] (]) 12:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I did consider a hatnote but the related articles (], ] and ]) all have "main article" redirects to this article in their Trademark dispute sections. ''Ugg boots'' doesn't have a counterfeits section while both the other articles do. In both, the counterfeit section is a separate section from the Trademark dispute section so readers have no confusion over what this article covers. ] (]) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Counterfeiting has been described as a trademark dispute on several reliable source websites, linked above. Including a single, highly notable counterfeiting case as an example is appropriate. And it's important to note that while one judge in one country (the Netherlands) excluded the generic defense from one counterfeiting case, trademark laws differ from country to country. Criminals manufacturing or selling counterfeit UGGs in any one of over 130 other countries that are not the Netherlands are still free to argue the genericity defense, and judges in those countries may rule in their favor. For all these reasons, the title does not have to be changed to include one sample counterfeiting case. ] (]) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::While counterfeiting is a trademark infringement it is not a trademark dispute, it is an intellectual property dispute. However, there is no real dispute, can you cite even one case which found in favour of counterfeits? Counterfeiting is prosecuted under copyright law not trademark law. ] (]) 01:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::To be honest, my search did turn up one case. A Deckers intellectual property lawyer sued a Chinese company for selling counterfeits after he bought a pair of UGGs from them that had dodgy trademark tags. The case was dismissed after it was found that the company was an authorized distributor for Deckers and that the tags were faulty due to poor quality control. That case was legitimately disputed but it doesn't invalidate my position. ] (]) 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I've added a counterfeiting see also to the Trademark disputes section. Hopefully this will resolve the problem so we can move on. ] (]) 02:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::To the contrary, a Google search that is properly constructed (combining two key terms such as Vaysman and Deckers, or Hepbourne and Deckers) produces links to dozens of websites that report various stages of the case. It's highly notable. The fact that counterfeiters have never defeated Deckers does not mean that they never dispute the charges; for example, counterfeit distributors in the Dutch La Cheapa case disputed the charges and lost, but it was still a trademark dispute. As mentioned previously, the Vaysman family chose to fight back in an unorthodox way: agree to an out of court settlement and then ignore it completely, agree to another out of court settlement and ignore that one as well, declare bankruptcy to avoid paying damages, etc. That's a very passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges, but it's a dispute nonetheless. And you've already admitted that "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: Counterfeiting is prosecuted under either patent law or trademark law, depending on the facts of the case; the counterfeiting cases discussed here all involve trademark law, hence they were trademark disputes. In the Vaysman case, copyright law happened to also be involved because like the counterfeiters in the Dutch La Cheapa case, the Vaysmans also duplicated a copyrighted owner's manual that Deckers includes in each box of genuine UGG brand boots. Your position has been thoroughly invalidated. ] (]) 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest. Be that as it may, not only does it return only 0.02% the number of results that a search of all counterfeit cases involving Deckers returns, but the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites. BTW, the Vaysman's ignored three settlements, not two and rather than a ''passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges'' it is the hallmark of a criminal enterprise. Ignoring a settlement is "public contempt," the Vaysman's were charged with "criminal contempt" for also ignoring subpoenas to reveal their sales and profits. Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish. La Cheapa did not dispute that their boots were copies of Deckers and co-operated with the court. La Cheapa's only argument was that the counterfeits were merely similar to Deckers and that the Jumbo Uggs they also sold stated on the Jumbo website that the brand ''UGG Australia'' was not protected so that covered the counterfeits as well and Deckers was unable to dispute this (quote:"Deckers has not contradicted the accuracy of this last statement. The court may therefore not conclude that there is trademark infringement"). The Dutch court instead found La Cheapa in copyright violation for it's counterfeit boots. The judge in his final judgment also criticized Deckers for bringing the case to court at all because La Cheapa had stopped selling the counterfeits (38 pairs in total) after being contacted and Deckers could not produce evidence that they tried to settle out of court. Deckers sought €25,957.72 in legal costs but this was reduced by €6,412.71 due to double billing. Because the court believed the case should not have been brought, it only awarded €11,699.00 plus court costs and forfeiture of €686, being the profits from La Cheapa's sales of counterfeits. This case actually makes Deckers look petty and vindictive. ] (]) 09:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::* ''Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest.'' That's not what I did. That may have been what you did to get your peculiar result. I used the names of the parties, Vaysman and Deckers, which is the way it's usually described; the search results demonstrate that it's highly notable. Using case numbers alone artificially narrows down the search, which is what would indeed be incredibly dishonest. |
|
|
:::::::::* ''... the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites.'' There are several reliable websites reporting this case. To a very large extent, Australian news media carefully ignored this case in much the same way that American news media carefully ignore, to be as kind as possible, inconsistencies in government descriptions of the ]. Kathy Marks, for example, is pretending that the Vaysman case does not exist. Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail. If licensed attorneys post false information about cases, they can be sanctioned by the bar association and their licenses to practice law can be suspended. Does every argument destroying your objections need to be repeated here? There are entire archives full of that sort of thing at ]. Perhaps I should just post a link. |
|
|
:::::::::* ''Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish.'' How did the Dutch judge reach the conclusion that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, if La Cheapa hadn't tried to use it? Like other counterfeiting cases discussed in the many reliable sources I've linked above, La Cheapa defines counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. In almost all cases, it involves trademarks. And when it goes to court, it's a dispute. I think your confusion may arise from the really peculiar fact that under Dutch IP law, the '''DESIGN''' aspects of a product (physical shape and appearance) are covered under the copyright chapter of their legal code. In most other countries, these design aspects are covered under patent law and the resulting patents are called "design patents." But in this case, printed materials in the Deckers box that had been copyrighted were also copied by the counterfeiters. |
|
|
:::::::::* At this link for the La Cheapa case in the copyright section of the decision (starting with 4.13), the word "boekje" refers to a booklet. In 4.20 there's a reference to an "UGG Pamphlet." In 4.22 again there's a "boekje en tekst" (textbook). These all refer to the owner's manual. The copyright section of the court's decision also refers to packaging, the sun logo, images (photos), and text on the La Cheapa website that was cut and pasted from the Deckers website. Packaging is ]. The rest are common elements of copyright infringement worldwide. All these legal eccentricities underscore the fact that IP law varies considerably from country to country, and when one Dutch judge says that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, it does '''NOT''' mean that it cannot be used in any other country. ] (]) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::*You are absolutely unbelievable. No need for me to reply to this section as what I wrote is so obviously being manipulated to get the answer you want. |
|
|
::::::::::*''Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail.'' Hellooooo. It was me who wanted to use legal documents. You took it to WP:RSN and argued that legal documents couldn't be used unless their claims were reported by the media. Unfortunately you won. |
|
|
::::::::::*I actually posted La Cheapa's argument above which was "the Jumbo website stated that the brand UGG Australia was not protected," the judge said that although Deckers could not refute the claim (the statement was in fact true), this was a generic defense and couldn't be used.<br />Please stop filibustering. No more posts. You keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and no one will bother reading this rubbish anyway so let the RFC move on to a result. ] (]) 16:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::*''... as what I wrote is so obviously being manipulated to get the answer you want.'' The way I see it, you distort and obscure certain important details. I clear it up, so that the truth is known. And the truth — that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, and therefore belongs in an article titled ] — is the answer I want. |
|
|
:::::::::::*''It was me who wanted to use legal documents ...'' Here's an excellent example of the preceding in action. Legal '''DOCUMENTS''' are primary sources, and you can cherry pick the details you want to spin-doctor content, which is precisely what was happening under your stewardship. Legal '''WEBSITES,''' in most cases, are reliable secondary sources, operated by law firms or published, peer-reviewed law reviews and journals. I was talking about legal websites. You've decided to pretend I was talking about legal documents. |
|
|
:::::::::::*''Unfortunately you won.'' I consider it very fortunate that Misplaced Pages was, once again, being protected from those who wish to use unreliable sources, use sources that are reliable for extremely limited purposes in an unreliable way (which is what was happening), or otherwise violate Misplaced Pages policy to pursue a private agenda. When Misplaced Pages is protected, Misplaced Pages wins. I am just an instrument of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
:::::::::::*''No more posts.'' You don't ] the RFC, any more than you ] the article. ] (]) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
