Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 19 August 2010

Fashion B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Law B‑class High‑importance

Ugg boots is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Animal rights C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2005—Dec 2008) Archive 2 (March—April 2010) Archive 3 (May—July 2010)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

RfC for Ugg boots

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

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

There's a large number of neutral reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Australians take up the first 2/3 of this article. There are also abundant decisions in arbitration.Australian Aura In "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear.

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

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

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

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

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

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\ 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 )

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.” 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\ 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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\ 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\ 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)

The trademark dispute

Who cares if Americans think "Ugg" is just a brand name? Well, evidently Uggs-N-Rugs and other Australian corporations think it's very important. Important enough to spend a lot of money on American lawyers, and perhaps a paid advocate or two here at Misplaced Pages. (Notice I said "perhaps.") There's also the consideration that there are far more people in the United States, speaking and reading English as their native language, than the rest of the world combined. So while the English Misplaced Pages shouldn't be edited from a strictly American or even America-centric POV, we have to give them their due, wouldn't you agree?

The first person to trademark the name was an Australian. Deckers bought the mark from him, fair and square. After some initial online searching and sniffing around, I can't find the slightest suggestion that there was anything even slightly unfair or illegal about that transaction. And then they spent millions of dollars promoting it, and developing the word into something valuable. Australian corporations are now trying to piggyback on their success. In Australia, the word UGG has some cultural history; but the rest of the world, not just America, recognizes it as a brand name. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

some of those "australian corporations" (except they arent ugly corporations but family businesses) have been making Ugg boots since the 1930's, many others have been making and marketing them in the US since before 1970's all well before Deckers brought anything or even marketed anything. Without their combined efforts there wouldnt have been anything to sell nor would the name even exist. Yes - Ugg boots did originate in Australia(maybe NZ), they are part of Australia's culture but to say Uggs is primarily recognised as a brand in the rest of world requires something more substantive than a survey of 313 women in the US, (see my comment and expansion on this point below) Gnangarra 01:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Farther up the page, someone wondered whether it was appropriate to survey only women in determining whether UGG is recognized as a brand. Simply put, I think women tend to be more fashion-conscious -- and brand-conscious about clothing, footwear and accessories. A man might look at a lady's handbag and think, "That's a designer handbag." At the same moment, his female companion might be thinking, "That's a Prada." (Or Gucci, or Louis Vuitton, etc.) Not saying men are any better (or worse) than women, just different. For us, brand consciousness tends toward cars and athletic gear. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys are totally missing the point. There are a lot of ignorant people who get "paedophile" and "paediatrician" mixed up, but that doesn't make them interchangeable. Similarly, many people say "invite" instead of "invitation". Just because Americans mistakenly think "Ugg" is exclusively a brand name doesn't make it so.

As for the women being more fashion-conscious, that's exactly why the survey is a sham. Women would get sucked in by that company trying to create the impression that only they manufacture Ugg boots. A lot more men would (correctly) say that "Ugg" is a generic term.(Huey45 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

Just because Americans mistakenly think "Ugg" is exclusively a brand name doesn't make it so. Huey. Listen to me. It isn't just in the United States. Outside of Australia, the rest of the world (including 1.6 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, 300 million Russians and 60 million Germans) thinks it's a brand name. It's a registered trademark in the 24 largest market nations in the world. And everywhere, with the solitary exception of Australia, every attempt to claim that it's a generic term rather than a brand name has been an Epic Failure.

A lot more men would (correctly) say that "Ugg" is a generic term. If you have some survey data indicating that they (together with the 11% of women who think it's a generic term) would form a majority or plurality of the entire population, I look forward to seeing that survey data. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty, and this is why we've had such a complex issue on this, is that there are two competing views. On the one hand there's the view common in Australia and New Zealand, along with their associated media, that "ugg boots" are a form of footwear that originated in those two countries, became known as ugg boots in those two countries, and which subsequently saw the term trademarked because people in Australia and NZ saw it as a shared term, and would no more have thought to trademark it than they would trademark pavlova. In this view the article is, and should be, about the style of footwear that originated in Australia and NZ, in much the same way that someone would argue that the ushanka article should be about the hat style, even if someone later trademarked the term and the name became closely associated with that brand outside of the country of origin. (Not that someone has, mind you).

The other view is that it is trademarked now, and, as you argue, people outside of the countries of origin connect the name to the trademark. Thus the article should reflect what people are most likely to connect with the term in countries other than Australia and New Zealand.

I don't think there's an easy fix, and it wasn't helped by aggressive defenses of the trademark in Australia and New Zealand, leading to a lot of "little Aussie icons fighting the big US corporation" news coverage, especially given that the "ugg boot" style is seen in Australia and NZ as something unique to the countries. I'd like a compromise, and would support mentioning the trademarked brand in the lead, but I admit to wanting to see the article continue to focus on the style rather than the brand. - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks for that. I was unaware that New Zealand was also claiming UGG as a generic term. I thought it was just Australia. Do you have a case citation for that? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a legal case. Best I have here is the Burgess, Dave (12 July 2007) "An ugg boot is an ug boot is an ugh boot" Dominion Post. Referring to the ugg boot trademark, it states:

But Intellectual Property Office NZ spokeswoman Shirley Flaherty said the trademark awarded to Deckers did not include footwear.

"The application has been accepted for . . . clothing, outerwear and headgear only."

She said ugg boots was a generic term, along with alternative spellings such as ug and ugh and could not be trademarked. "But there is the option for traders to apply for a logo trademark that might contain a stylised version."

Generally, Australia and NZ will fight over where anything that came from one of the two countries originated, including people. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the mid 1990's there has been a mutual blurring of many legal, trade, government regulatory agenices between Australia and New Zealand to point that what applies in one country equally applies in the other much like the EU but more indepth while retaining financial independency. Gnangarra 01:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the survey data above, while I'm not opposed to including it, I think we need to be careful about its use, as there are clear limitations in the survey tool - while I understand why they limited it that way, and it makes sense in terms of the court case, the select nature of the sample would need to be covered, as without that it might be misleading just to include the data. Thus I removed it for discussion again. That said, I'm not sure that it is needed - it seems sufficient to say that the court found for Deckers. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to be able to state "A lot more men would (correctly) say that "Ugg" is a generic term" because there is nothing you can use to back that up, but there also nothing to support that its solely a brand name US either because it doesnt have or even pretend to have a cross section of US population its focused solely on one demographic and that demographic isnt even in the same market demographic that Ugg boots have been marketed in for the last 50 years in the US. That said the survey should and can be used in the context of the trademark case in California where Deckers Lawyers successfully argued that UGG is not a generic term in the US. WP:OR specifically says To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. its publish in a reliabe source all be it a WP:PRIMARY source, its related to the topic, the violation of OR occurs when the survey is used to represent a POV about demographics wider than that of the source in this case the claim that UGG is primarily recognised as a brand outside of Austraia and New Zealand. As for a hat note I dont see any necessity as Deckers is linked in the article, the trademark gets balanced coverage including explanation that UGG is a registered trademark outside of Australia & New Zealand. note I just add something to the lead Deckers should be linked as soon as practiable in the lead WP:UNDUE, there is still a difference between owning a trademark and ugg being primarily recognised as brandname. Gnangarra 01:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Section Break 1

Well Bilby, I am intimately familiar with the regional pride exhibited by Anzacs, and they are certainly entitled to it. Any English speaking country that isn't America seems more motivated than most to preserve their cultural identity, distinct from America's. I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. So I expect them to fight over it, and it appears that on their own turf, they've won; but everywhere else they've tried it, they lost. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow, once again you are insisting that registering a trademark nullifies the origins and inherent meaning of a word. I know that people in Europe etc think of "Ugg" the same way as Americans; I was just referring to Americans because everyone else was talking about them. The principle is the same for all of them, i.e. the word was misrepresented when it was introduced to them. Your double meaning suggestion is nonsense anyway; there can only be one. By your logic, you could say that God exists in some parts of the world and doesn't in others (which sounds racist, funnily enough, since you're disregarding Australia's claim to its own product).(Huey45 (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

once again you are insisting that registering a trademark nullifies the origins and inherent meaning of a word No he isn't. ¶ Your double meaning suggestion is nonsense anyway; there can only be one. It's entirely possible for a tradename to be registered in one part of the world and not in another. And more generally, polysemy is normal in natural languages such as English. ¶ By your logic, you could say that God exists in some parts of the world and doesn't in others What? For one thing, this is an entirely separate (non-) matter. For another, plutonium (for example) exists in some parts of the world and not in others; if you accept that a god is logically possible then its existence needn't imply omnipresence. ¶ Now, is "ugg" much used generically outside Australia and New Zealand? I used to think that it was, but I've had trouble finding much evidence for this. Do you have evidence for such generic use? If so, let's see it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "ugg" is used generically outside Australia, I said it's irrelevant. You're also misinterpreting my example with God. I was saying that some people believe in God and some don't, just like people with conflicting opinions on whether "Ugg" is a generic name. User:Phoenix and Winslow said that the word can just have a different definition in each place and I was saying it's ridiculous because only one can be right; they're mutually exclusive, just like God either does or doesn't exist.

If you applied the geographic-dependant logic to the God example, then you would end up saying that God exists in some parts of the world and doesn't in others, which sounds a lot like typical racist propaganda. That was an interesting coincidence because the original issue was also related to racism; i.e. the theft of Australia's culture then the disregard for the original use of the word just because it was in Australia and not the U.S. or Europe. (Huey45 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Let's forget gods, except to agree that God either does exist XOR doesn't exist. You say User:Phoenix and Winslow said that the word can just have a different definition in each place and I was saying it's ridiculous because only one can be right; they're mutually exclusive, just like God either does or doesn't exist. No, wrong. First, words in natural languages can and do have related but different meanings. Secondly, it's not uncommon for difference to arise geographically: "pavement" is what people walk on in Britain and what people drive on in the US. Thirdly (again!), it's normal for trademarks to be registered in some jurisdictions and not in others. ¶ Perhaps you are saying "ugg is a generic term in English in Australia and therefore it is properly generic in English everywhere." If so, I wonder about the "therefore" in that. Moreover, and however wrongly, various trademark registration authorities (and even judges) disagree. ¶ And if your larger point is that words have original and proper meanings that should not be corrupted, then you'll either have to break your rules repeatedly or have to use words with their original meanings (hint: "toilet water") and be misunderstood repeatedly. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Section Break 2

Hoary/Gnangarra, I think we’re making progress but I also think we can clarify exactly what the article is about in the first sentence. I think we can also clean up the language in the lead. Somehow the it seems clunky to me. I don’t have a problem with the content, I just want to improve the presentation.

I think this is a definite improvement. We’ve now clarified what the article is and is not about. I agree that there are very few secondary sources for Ugg being generic anywhere outside of Australia. The only sources that directly state how Ugg is viewed internationally are in the California and Dutch court cases. In those sources, an independent body, with nothing to gain, has impartially judged evidence presented by both sides of the argument. The court in California stated explicitly that the evidence presented by both sides was “clearly demonstrating that the term is non-generic.” This is as direct a statement as we can possibly find. If we allow the IP Australia decision (which was not heard by a judge) to inform the articles position on ugg in Australia then we have to allow these two as well.--Factchk (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think your missing the point here, theres no dispute that Uggs originated in Aust(except maybe from the odd Kiwi). Theres no argument that Uggs were brought into the US from Australia during the 1960's - 70's for the surfers/swimmers. or Deckers later brought the trademark no dispute that UGG is a trademark of Deckers just about every where and has since around 2000 been in dispute over its use. As an encyclopaedia thats what the article should convey, the problems lies with the false premise that because deckers has the right to use the word UGG as a trademark that this article should be presented only from Deckers point of view or with a heavy bias to deckers. This article follows that basic flow from origin to ownership to dispute... the impass lies not in the content but that this article should present the history of Ugg boots according to deckers, with a new article covering the origins of the Ugg boot any mention of Australia over at Sheepskin boots. What Factchk and Pheonix&Winslow are missing is that if this was an article solely on Deckers product it would fail WP:N because without the Australian history and the court disputes the product just isnt notable. Gnangarra 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Permit me to clarify my position then, Gnangarra. I'm trying to find a middle ground between Factchk and the Aussies. The history of ugg boots (lower case) in Australia prior to registration of the trademark is valuable. It occupies a very prominent place in the article: the first few paragraphs after the lede. So this isn't an article that's "solely about Deckers product." I see this as a WP:WEIGHT issue. Deckers owns the trademark in the entire world outside of Australia and New Zealand. Speaking strictly about the "Trademark dispute" section, this should have the weight of a majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT, while considerations of the Australian manufacturers should have the weight of a substantial minority opinion. Factchk makes a good point, in that the American and Dutch cases were heard by judges, while the Australian case was not. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

rather than just linking try reading WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". The trademark dispute section is about the dispute each are being treated equally in the article based on sources though the Deckers POV is relying on primary sources rather than published secondary sources. What your doing is called synthesis by trying to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
The issue of American and Dutch cases were heard by judges, while the Australian case was not after the decision was made in Australia, Deckers had the right for the dispute to be heard in the Federal court before the decision was made final(ie ratified by the Federal court), Deckers didnt. Again your doing your own research and drawing conclusions that arent supported by reliable sources. Gnangarra 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What your doing is called synthesis by trying to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What conclusion is that? We're producing the facts we've located in reliable sources, without violating WP:SYNTH. Yes, to a certain extent we do rely on primary sources; but they are judicial reporting services. They are, by definition, neutral in the dispute. The language used at WP:RS is, "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution ..." and I suggest that we are exercising sufficient caution here. This is expanded upon in a section of WP:NOR here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

see your comment Gnangarra 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and it appears on the article Talk page, not in the mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used if you can also produce a secondary source that reaches the same conclusion. — e. ripley\ 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterfeit boots

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

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

Agree. I have removed this section. It would be in the interests of those trying to protect sales of a brand to get information out there about counterfeiting but is not Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is supposed to cater for brand-conscious readers. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). 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.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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" 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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages article on uggs to be too important to be left to the normal processes of Misplaced Pages. -- 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 Misplaced Pages article on uggs to be too important to be left to the normal processes of Misplaced Pages," 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as a quick reference to 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.

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

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

That's quite a story, P&W. There may be a moral in it about the likely fate of any Australian outfit with the gall to attempt to cash in on the heartwarming result of eight million dollars legally spent by an upstanding corporation. Do you think Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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." (Page 6 of the Koolaburra decision.) These results are overwhelming. This survey, its methodology and its results were carefully reviewed by a federal judge and found to be reliable enough for him to rely upon them in his decision. If you have some other survey results indicating that the reverse is true, I'd be happy to review them. But until such survey results or other contraindicative proofs emerge, this survey result should inform us about what we should do with this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I have no COI. Perhaps others do, but I don't (and my editing history tends to confirm that). I'm just a consumer. The brand name "Jeep" didn't exist until 1950, 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 Misplaced Pages. It is the English Misplaced Pages, providing information to all English-speaking people in the world. It needs to be written that way. UGG dominates the worldwide market, so it's difficult to justify any dominance of this article by the much smaller Australian brands and their obvious commercial interests. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is Someone Going to Submit a(n) RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The issues then come down to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• B-Class fashion articles
• High-importance fashion articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• High-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Australian law articles
• High-importance Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• C-Class Animal rights articles
• Mid-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment