Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 22 October 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Law 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 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Animal rights 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 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) Archive 4 (August 2010) Archive 5 ( )

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Current state of the article.

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

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

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

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

Yes. I agree it should be mentioned, but it's overblown with extra details that belong on the UGG Australia page rather than here. Also, we've got two court cases presented to counterpoint each other and highlight "the debate", but they are basically about different things. The first is about the generic usage of the term "ugg" the second is about deliberate attempts to knock-off Deckers styles and designs. Completely unrelated issues with the second (systematic cloning of SPECIFIC Deckers designs, whatever they may be named), in my opinion, having absolutely no place in this article.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with this take. Here is how I wrote the trademark section to rework the morass of WP:OR and primary sources that had been there before. I would recommend it as a decent starting point once again. Take a look. . — e. ripley\ 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - this is what an article like this should be like in an encyclopaedia. It tells you what's happening without changing the focus of the article.Mandurahmike (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, look at the Budweiser article again, gentlemen. An article about a generic term that has become a trademark in most of the world. The first half is disambiguation, and the second half is about the trademark disputes. That article has been stable for years, because there aren't any Czechs pushing an anti-Anheuser Busch POV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Its stable because there aint Anheuser–Busch InBev WP:SPA editors denying that the term existed before and beyond the company. Gnangarra 12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also not a large section and giant quote about people trying to copy the exact taste of Budweiser (brand) beer being used as an argument against the existence of a generic term. The juxtaposed court cases here don't even relate to each other as they are about entirely different issues. It's perfectly valid to have content here about the debate about the use of the term as generic versus trademarked, but the counterfeiting of Deckers products belongs on the Deckers page.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe there should be two pages. One for the Australian term ugg referring to a style of boot and one for the World-Wide know brand UGG. There could be a note saying...if you want to learn about Australia's term ugg please see.... and then a similar note for the brand UGG and their world-wide trademarked brand of products. Then people can choose what they want to read about. A generic term used only in Australia and New Zealand or the Decker's brand UGG.(98.108.217.178 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

There already is two pages. This one and "Ugg Australia". We also already have the hatnote "This article is about the type of footwear. For the brand known as "UGG", see UGG Australia" at the top.22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have more or less a consensus about this. I feel the Dutch court case needs to go. It's not even accurate. It starts out "A similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch Court" is not only original research, but is a flat out fallacy. It's pretty clear that the court cases are in no way similar beyond the fact they both involve Deckers and Ugg Boots. Does anyone want to provide some sort of argument as to why the cases can be tied together as similar beyond the extremely superficial? I don't think one exists. We've got a case about a trade marked name versus the case of counterfeiting of actual designs.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't have (more or less) a consensus about this. And I must say that you have an interesting editing history. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with P&W. There has been anything but consensus for years now. There has been debate about the fundamental nature of this entry from the very beginning. That we are even having this discussion is proof of it.--Factchk (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we include other names for Ugg Boots?

Such as Ug Boots, Ugh Boots, Ugly Boots, Uggies and variants listed as alternatives beyond "Uggs" (something I've never heard them called outside of the Deckers context - note that I am NOT saying "Uggs" should be removed as people certainly call them that too)? Most other pages online about these boots list alternative names so it seems odd they aren't listed here.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

they have been listed/mentioned/covered from time to time in the article but its something that comes and goes. Gnangarra 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Was "Uggies" just a Western Australian thing? I never heard them referred to as "Uggs" and the more casual Aussie diminutive term "Uggies" was most often used when referring to the boots. I'm certainly not disputing that people refer to them as Uggs, but I think some of the other names (ugh, ug, uggies) warrant inclusion again as relevant to the item being described.Mandurahmike (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly Not Recognized in AU

Currently it says that the UGG Australia TM is explicitly not recognized at per a 2006 ruling. This is totally untrue. A quick search of IP Australia's database reveals that the UGG Australia trademark is still valid. The 2006 decision was in reference to a mark entitled "UGH-BOOTS." To say otherwise is to promote a blatant falsehood.--Factchk (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I must revert the removal of the Dutch case blockquote by Bilby. As I said in the edit summary when reverting, "Sorry, but this is a landmark case in European IP law, and there are many factors in this ruling that are of interest to students of intellectual property." The case almost merits an entire Misplaced Pages article of its own. I've repeatedly posted links to several articles about this court case in the European press, in both law journals and fashion magazines. The fact that they aren't in English is completely irrelevant, and those who may complain about it are exhibiting bias.

Kindly review this diff, Bilby: While there is some support on this page for removal of the blockquote, there is simply no consensus. For such a contentious issue, consensus must be clearly and explicitly demonstrated. Sorry, Bilby. You have the best of intentions, but there just isn't consensus for it — nor should there be, considering the importance of this case in European legal circles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument you've provided for keeping that case in the article is that it saw the use of the "generic term" defence. While that may be sufficient for retaining coverage of the case, the quote has nothing to do with that at all, and solely relates to "passing off" the goods as Deckers products. That's not relevant to the section, and puts undue weight on what is still a relatively minor case. I'm not objecting to the preceding paragraph, as it makes mention of the generic term defence, just the extensive quote which doesn't. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You describe this case as "relatively minor," perhaps because you don't live in Europe. Under European intellectual property law, this is a landmark case similar to Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education. If this were the Dutch version of Misplaced Pages, it would definitely be notable enough to have its own article. Pretending it is a "relatively minor" case is not in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages project, which is supposed to serve all English-speaking people in the world: not just those who live in Australia and New Zealand, but also those who live in the United States and Europe, a far larger number of people.

It is an example of an unscrupulous Australian boot manufacturer trying to get rich from marketing efforts of an American company, through deceptive practices. The Australian manufacturer, acting through its agent in the Netherlands, engaged in a comprehensive pattern of deceptive conduct that barely avoided crossing the line into criminal felony territory. Instead, the Dutch sales agent was assessed the maximum civil penalty that the law would allow.

Much has been written in this article about the case in Australia which was just as "relatively minor" as the Dutch case, but it made the Aussies look good, and the Yanks look bad. In fact that case was all this WP article talked about for several years. This Dutch case makes the Aussies look bad, and the Yanks look good. And so we see a comprehensive effort to cut down coverage of this case in Misplaced Pages.

There have been other uses of the generic term defense in China and Singapore. And three counterfeiters were thrown in prison in the UK for contempt, after they were ordered to stop distributing fake UGG brand boots, yet continued to do so. I've already posted links to reliable sources here on the Talk page. I'd like to mention those cases in the mainspace as well.

The model for this article should be the Budweiser article, not a self-serving press release by Uggs-N-Rugs. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The case is that of a manufacturer making counterfeit goods, or at least making goods deceptively similar to those of another company. That happens a lot. Comparing that to Roe-vs-Wade is, to be honest, more than just a tad over the top. But my main point is still the same - the quote is not related to the generic term defence, and is thus unrelated to the topic of that section. I'm not opposing a mention of the case, because, as you say, it used that defence, so it is relevant to the discussion. But I do feel that the quote is unnecessary in the context of the article, and gives the case more weight than is warranted in the section. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby - the Dutch case block quote has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding information. It needs to go. It's continued presence gives the whole section a very POV feel by grabbing any old statement that comes out in favour of Deckers versus "unscrupulous companies out to rip them off" and throwing it on the pile, regardless of how it relates to the rest of the article. The block quote has no relevance to the rest of the section, that is, "Ugg boots as a generic TERM versus a copyrighted TERM". Once again, it's perfectly valid to have information about disputes over the TERM on this page, but disputes specific to Deckers and Deckers products belong on the Deckers or Ugg Australia page.Mandurahmike (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

P&W - you'll have to point out to me the bit on the Budweiser page where there's a huge block quote about a company deliberately copying the Budweiser (brand) taste and label design that's somehow inserted into the article despite having nothing to do with the debate about generic term versus copyrighted term. For someone who is so keen on 100% consensus rather than the mere nearly total consensus we have, you don't seem to be especially shy about making changes yourself while running us in the same rhetorical circles you've been repeating ad infinitum. The rest of us have been shown to be willing to accept compromise, you appear to be unable to accept any change that doesn't conform to your preferred ideal for the article.Mandurahmike (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike. It isn't me. It's that annoying, inconvenient Misplaced Pages policy called WP:WEIGHT, part of WP:NPOV. See below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages's role to right the wrongs of the world. If the issues about unscrupulous manufacturers and the Dutch case are notable, make an article about them. However, it is not acceptable to use other articles to promote the interests of the "good" manufacturer. I have asked several times that any material that promotes the interests of the "bad" manufacturers should be identified and removed – the solution is removal, not balancing by promoting the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It IS Misplaced Pages's role to right the wrongs that Misplaced Pages has caused through its own unbalanced, biased, POV-pushing article these past several years. The Dutch case is at least the equal of the Australian case, in terms of its importance within its jurisdiction. Therefore it deserves at least equal weight in this article. The greater prominence of placement of the material about the Australian case (in the article lede and in a large portion of the first half of the article) requires that when we finally get around to mentioning the Dutch case, it must have at least equal space, if not more. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Australian case is important because of the issue of ugg being a generic term. The Dutch case has no such importance. Therefore, no, it does not deserve equal weight. Donama (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't about the same things. How can you be arguing for the Dutch case as equal eight for the Australian case when They are about completely different issues that are only superficially connected? The Dutch case IS included in the article with relevant material regarding the use of the generic term - THAT is the equal weight. We don't need to skew the article with the irrelevant block quote.Mandurahmike (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. If previous articles (or the current article) contain undue promotion of Australian interests, we just remove the undue material and state the verified facts plainly. There is no policy or convention that articles should compensate for previous undue text by piling on undue material in the opposite direction. I was going to suggest that the mention of AU/NZ in the lead be removed, but on re-reading it, I cannot see that anything in the current article contains a promotion of AU/NZ interests. If there is such material, please identify it.

The statement in the lead about Deckers holding the UGG trade mark in most countries is wildly OR (the ref asks the reader to search at the WIPO website to verify the claim). Isn't there some neutral way of stating the situation without all the nonsense that is of no interest to readers? Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Top image of page

There's no good way to get multilingual consistency in Misplaced Pages, but I'm really not clear why an image of branded ugg boots is the top (or only) image on most of the other-language Misplaced Pages sites, when there is a really good representative picture that is also brand-inspecific available on the Commons (File:UggBoots_SMC.JPG). I note, the recent Polish-language version is an exception. Donama (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Readdition of cruft

This reversion of a careful removal of stuff specific to counterfeiting (as I believe the word is conventionally spelled) does nothing to help understanding of a kind of boot called uggs and is most anomalous for articles on products. This material might belong in UGG Australia -- and if the court case is so very significant, then create an article about it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit got rid of spelling errors, irrelevancies (a general interest encyclopedia does not need patent numbers included in the text), improperly formed abbreviations (there's no need to introduce USPTO at all much less without explaining the abbreviation), the excess quoted text about the California case which I paraphrased instead for readability, and the blockquote and strange assertion about the media coverage of the Dutch case per WP:UNDUE. Clearly there is a consensus for my edit, as it's the one that currently stands. — e. ripley\ 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" in normal English means that everybody agrees. "Consensus" in contorted Wikipediaese means that the majority agrees. I think it's safe to say that the majority hereabouts prefers your version. The fact that it's the current version (or was, the last time I looked) doesn't prove anything though. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In any case, we'll see in the fullness of time. — e. ripley\ 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of other cruft (or not)

In this edit, an editor removed:

''Westhaven Industries,'' a non-profit organisation that employs the intellectually disabled, has been making Ugg boots since the early 1970s and the '']'' had listed ugg/ugh boots as a generic term for the footwear from 1981 until threats of litigation forced its removal.<ref name="Hansard"/>

and

In response, the issue was discussed in the ] where ] ] compared the controversy to an Australian company trying to buy the trademark "]".<ref name="Hansard"/>

were removed, with the edit comment Removing cruft. Now, I do see problematic aspects to what was removed. (As just one example, I'd like to know whether one could accurately add either (a) "to loud bipartisan applause and shouts of 'Hear hear!'" or (b) "to bipartisan eye-rolling and derisive laughter" to Baldwin's comparison.) But I do wonder whether these are "cruft" or anyway if they're better deleted. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they really add much to the article. This is the sort of thing, pro and con arguments alike, that may bloat the section beyond what's reasonable. We shouldn't really be trying to argue the question inside this article, beyond what's necessary for lay readers to understand the bones of the conflict. — e. ripley\ 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the removal and endorse it. It is conceivable that the removed material could be DUE and rewritten into some part of the article, but the items do have a WP:SYNTH look about them (particularly given the history of this article) where, whatever the author's intention, the text could be interpreted as cherry picking of isolated factoids in order to promote a view regarding who "owns" this style of boot. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• 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