Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 24 July 2010

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)

Ugg boots in popular culture

I've just now removed the following paragraph, under the title above:

Ugg boots have been referred to a handful of times in the best-selling "Clique" series. In the sixth installment, Dial L for Loser, Massie scorned Kristen for wearing her special-edition purple studded Uggs without permission. This is just one of many examples of Ugg notification in the series. Ugg boots also played a major role in the reality show Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School when the winner of the series Saaphyri Windsor had to give her ugg boots away at a thrift store as part of one of the shows challenges. They have also been seen in many TV shows and movies.

It strikes me as entirely trivial, as well as unsourced. I mean, even if it were verified (and expressed better), I don't see how it would be of any interest. Others may disagree, which is why I've dumped it here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Generic in Australia as far back as 1960's

I have seen a post that indicates the terms UGG boots, ugh boots and ug boots have been used as generic terms for sheepskin boots in Australia since the 1950's and 1960's with a citation from an Australian Decison of a Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks with Reasons. However, there is no place in this decision that indicates the term was generic since the 1950's and 1960's. Can someone please provide exact support for the propositon that the terms have been generic since the 50's or 60's? Middlemarch2256 (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That source indeed says no such thing. It does however say that the names were used generically from the 1970s. -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Of note on the "generic issue", trademark law is particular to each individual country. That said, most countries around the world subscribe to a similar set of trademark principes. This is particularly true where countries have chosen to "band together" under a single treaty or agreement, such as the decision of many European countries to be part of the Madrid Protocol. Yet overall, most countries have their own sets of rules.

This is important to note, as it renders the statement "UGG is generic" quite false. Even if the trademark UGG® had been found generic by a particular country, that finding is specific to that particular country. In actuality, that finding is specific to that country, to that set of goods, under those particular circumstances. The strength of a trademark is very case and situation-specific. What renders a mark protectable in one country may not in another country. Again, generally the registration of a mark is "proof" that it is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, Deckers' dozens of trademark registrations around the world are proof that the mark is far from generic. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

registered trademark

The article was recently made to start:

UGG is a registered trademark in the United States, Europe and a 100+ countries for a brand of sheepskin boots and other footwear.

No evidence was adduced for this assertion, which seems most improbable. The US, maybe. The rest of the world -- where's the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does have three links that purport to show this. One is dead. The other two are unhelpful. -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct Hoary 100+ countries is too much. Just corrected the record to say that the mark is protected in dozens of countries as a registred trademark and provided links to USPTO, Canada and the European Union. The European Union registration covers 59 individual countries and Ugg is registered mark in more than 100 countries, but linking to all of these is not practical. These links are certainly proof that the mark is a registered brand name, not a generic term. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Middlemarch2256 edits since some of the changes made are against WP:MOS. Also I don't think it's needed to state that UGG is a registered trademark as this is about Ugg boots and not the UGG name and Misplaced Pages doesn't have content or sections in articles of brands or companies about it being a registered trademark. At this stage if you readd or revert it without any discussion you could be blocked. Bidgee (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you go a little too far, Bidgee, in that registerability (?) of the "Ugg" tradename has been and continues to be a major issue. (Cf "Budweiser".) Middlemarch, as there are fewer than 30 nations in the EU I'm puzzled by the notion that EU registration "covers 59 individual countries". Perhaps you can explain this here. You might also give the number of one or two of these registrations, so that they can be viewed among the hundreds of registrations of names that happen to include the string "ugg". Incidentally, even if it is a registered TM it can still be a generic name; indeed, we have ample evidence that it is a generic name. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Coke is a registered trademark to Coca-Cola and the only thing we have about it is "Coke (a now genericized trademark)" but it's simple (and more used term) then Ugg. If there has been legal issues over the trademark then it should have a section but it would need reliable sources cited. Bidgee (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh but there are reliable sources, at least for some of this stuff. Notably this source. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee, entering into a discussion with you as you requested. I am puzzled by your comment that it is "not needed to state that UGG is a registered trademark" and the dismissal of trademark rights in so many countries. While a term may be generic in one country it does not mean it is everywhere. For instance, while in the United Kingdom, United States, France and Russia "aspirin" is a generic term Bayer still holds the trademark in 80 countries, including Canada. Please see the below heading "trademark registration in the EU" where I have provided links to the CTM, Wipo, Canada and China registries where UGG is not considered generic but rather a protected trademark. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

trademark registration in the EU

Among the external links is:

• Link to trademark registration on the CTM for UGG, owner Deckers Outdoor Corporation.

This takes you to Searching the Community trade mark database: CTM-ONLINE / CTM-ONLINE provides ready access to information on Community trade mark (CTM) applications and registrations including online access to CTM files.

It's possible to search there for trademarks starting "ugg". This leads to seven items, of which one is obviously irrelevant and the others are:

• 006335665 (11 Sep 2008)
• 006335632 (11 Sep 2008)
• 004686994 (2 Feb 2007)
• 003894623 (19 Oct 2005)
• 001409721 (31 Jan 2001)
• 0902172 (26 Jan 2006)

What's interesting is that in the two that I bothered to investigate (by clicking the little "+" next to the name "UGG"), footwear isn't obviously covered. Take the last one, for example. It's for:

Nice Classification: 	1
List of goods and services 	Water and stain repellant for use on sheepskin and leather.
Nice Classification: 	3
List of goods and services 	Cleaner and conditioner for use on sheepskin and leather.
Nice Classification: 	24
List of goods and services 	Throws.
Nice Classification: 	27
List of goods and services 	Rugs.
Nice Classification: 	35
List of goods and services 	Retail store services, mail order catalog services and 
                                on-line retail store services featuring footwear, clothing, 
                                handbags and home accessories. 

IANAL (and more specifically IANAIPL) but while I see here various things relevant to boots and the sale thereof, I don't see boots themselves.

Those with more time and energy than I are welcome to investigate further. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, first and foremost "footwear" is covered by Decker registrations and on top of that related goods as well. Trademarks protect the work that an entity puts into promoting its goods/services. Trademarks are entitled to protection because they are distinctive enough that the relevant person associates the mark with the entity. In the U.S. and several other countries around the world, a trademark may be entitled to protection whether or not it is registered. Registration, however, provides "confirmation" of the validity of the trademark. When an entity registers a tradeemark it identifies a particular class of goods/services on which it intends to use the mark. While these goods/services specify some particular products, the trademark may cover more than just the items listed in the registration, including related goods. A trademark is designed to prevent "confusion" therefore any other "confusingly similar" mark used on closely related goods/services is not allowed. Deckers' UGG registrations in various countries expressly cover footwear, but in some countries coverage for additional goods is also obtained, including bags (class 18), retail store services (class 35), sheepskin cleaner (class 1), and of course, clothing/outerwear/hats/g;pves, etc. Here, while Deckers may choose to register particular marks for particular sets of goods, these marks cover far more than what is explicitly listed, as a result of Deckers' long-standing use of the mark, and the effort, money and time it invests in maintaining its rights. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are links to the CTM, Wipo(Madrid Protocol), Canada and China registers where interested parties can look up the UGG registrations owned by Deckers. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi. Coming here as a result of a request at WP:3O. I take it there's a dispute over sourcing for a claim about the breadth of Ugg trademarks? I must confess, the "trademark dispute" section here is a mess. Total hodgepodge of what appears to me, as a layman, to be information of questionable use. Are there any published sources that discuss the trademark dispute that could be summarized better? Also, I don't see any edit warring at present over much of anything. What is still disputed? — e. ripley\ 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for some time, I have not seen any edit warring, just occasional vandalism by what looks like someone that works for deckers. --UltraMagnus (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Middlemarch2256 not 10 minutes ago added this request at WP:3O: . — e. ripley\ 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was the user I was referring to, the nature of their edits have given me the suspicion that he/she may work for deckers. This is the only page they have actually contributed to, and their edits have consisted exclusively of pro deckers propaganda --UltraMagnus (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi E. Ripley, Thanks for responding so soon. The edit warring is visible in the history pages between Bidgee and Middlemarch. Bidgee edits without discussion the information that the name is registered in the United States, Canada, European Union, China as a brand name and with a controversy in Australia and instead empahasizes in the first paragraph a minority viewpoint held in Australia that the name is generic. Additonally the language is not neutral but promotes the Austalian viewpoint without recognizing trademark laws in dozens of countries. This seems to be biased. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What language are you proposing instead? — e. ripley\ 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello E. Ripley, Something similar to my edits on 8/25/09 in which the more globablly accepted viewpoint that the name has registered protection as a brand in dozens of countries around the world and that there is some dispute in Australia. I think that would be more fair. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean this edit . I have not absorbed the entire edit, but place the link here for easy reference. I will come back to it directly. — e. ripley\ 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I will refrain from commenting on the specifics of the Australian trademark dispute portion and focus for now on your opening. My initial impression is that your preferred opening is not a good way to begin an article here about Ugg boots. The first words the article presents to our readers deal with where things are trademarked. That is not the whole of the boots. The introductory paragraph needs to be a summation of what these boots are, the most important or interesting points about them. I see no reason why we should begin with where these boots are trademarked. Secondly, it also seems to reference Ugg brand more than Ugg boots (is there another Ugg branded product besides boots?), I am not sure this is appropriate but that might be my own ignorance of the topic.

Upon further reflection, I am not really sure it's necessary to say anywhere within the article where these boots are trademarked. I don't see why it's relevant to the article at all. Mentioning the dispute in Australia is appropriate because it's a conflict, but otherwise I don't see any need to have some sort of laundry list of where they're trademarked. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, it should strive to present an accurate summation of a topic for its readers, it is not a repository for every provable fact about any certain topic. — e. ripley\ 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello E. Ripley, Thank you for your input. I'm afraid however, the above suggestion does not resolve the problem. You indicate that the page should avoid discussion of trademarks and should stick to reference of "what these boots are." However, "what UGG boots are" is the heart of the discussion. Throughout most of the world, UGG® boots are those specifically produced and distributed through Deckers Outdoor Corporation. This is, quite simply, a matter of law - not opinion. Referring to "ugg boots" as anything other than UGG® brand boots is a violation of Deckers' legal rights. I have been attempting to reach a middle ground in order to acknowledge that thesel legal rights are disputed in a very small part of the world. However, the fact of the matter is, in nearly all countries the term "ugg" refers only to UGG® brand boots. If, as you suggest, trademark disputes are not referred to in the page, this is fine. However, as a matter of law, the page will have to be altered to state "these boots" are the UGG® brand boots. Please let me know if this is the preferred route and I will provide the suggested changes. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite/cleanup of History, Design and Lead sections

It seems this needed to be cleaned up a bit, so I've given it a go. I rewrote much of the history section based on the sources I could dig up and expanded it to cover a couple of other issues, including what little I could find on the origins of the name. In doing so, some of the first part, where it stated:

Since humans first cultivated sheep, cultures have made soft sheepskin boots. Their popularity diminished once leather tanning of more durable leather products like cowhide increased. Unlike cowhide, the sheepskin is soft and easily abraded, limiting it to gentle use.

I've removed, as I couldn't find an adequate source, and I would suggest that this refers to "sheepskin" boots, rather than the ugg boot style. Similarly, the section on Design had to be completely rewritten. The original read a bit too much like a sales catalog, and the only source provided was a primary source that sold (or at least helped to sell) the boots. This also led to a rewrite of much of the lead to match, now that there were sources in the body.

At this stage I haven't tackled the trademark dispute. It will need to be tightened, but obviously will need coverage and, in my view, doing so would warrant mention of Deckers' trademark in the second half of the lead. In relation to the above discussions, my view is that this article is about the ugg boot as a style - discussion of the UGG brand is warranted under the trademark section, and possibly in history, but I see that as a subsection in regard to the wider history of the style being discussed.

My major hope is that having sourced content will make it easier to maintain the article against the ongoing vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How to tell fake UGG® boots from real ones

Reverted the Bot's decision to remove a link to an external site that is provided to help consumers who want real UGG® footwear to be able to make a more informed decision about where they purchase their footwear from (to avoid buying fakes) and to help consumers who have a pair of UGG® boots and are wanting to confirm that they are real.

The link is: http://ugg-advice.weebly.com

The link was added rather than updating the main Misplaced Pages article to allow for the information to be provided without over burdening the article, as a list of fake retailers is rather long!

The link itself is to a quality web site (albeit provided free by Weebly) and uses the UGG® branding correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk • contribs) 05:20, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia, not a shopping manual. And of course many other brand names are faked, but Rolex and similar articles do not have links about these.

Anyone wondering whether something claiming to be brand XYZ can google for "XYZ fake detect" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought Misplaced Pages might have had a social responsibility, and was a reference web sites rather than a traditional paper based encyclopaedia, a reference web site that can cover these varied topics more easily and willingly. My mistake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is focused on Ugg boots as a style, not the UGG brand. Thus it isn't directly concerned with the idea of faked UGG brand boots, as it is outside of the subject area. Even if it was, the site in question isn't what we'd regard as a reliable source source, being self published, so it can't be used as a reference, and it appears to contravene the external links guidelines, so it can't be used there, either. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a message that was posted to my talk page:

Interested in the deletion of the link to http://ugg-advice.weebly.com which (although provided by Weebly) supports much of the content of the main UGG® article by promoting the brand name and values and warns consumers away from fakes and fake retailers. I also added why it was added to the discussion section of the site. I created http://ugg-advice.weebly.com as a warning to others after myself falling foul to a fake retailer, and didn't want anyone else to make the same mistake. I make the presumption that many visitors to the UGG® article on Misplaced Pages may be looking for help and advice on finding the real deal.

http://ugg-advice.weebly.com isn't monetised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My response:

Although you talk of "the UGG® article on Misplaced Pages" there is no "UGG® article". There's an article on ugg boots, and in much the same way that there's one on jackboots and another on tanker boots.

You also say above that the link you want to add " the brand name and values". There's no reason why an article should have any link that promotes any commercial product.

Further, your site is odd in that it appears to make no distinction between ugg boots that do and don't pretend to be "UGG® boots". That appears to demean the makers and sellers of ugg boots that don't pretend to be anything that they are not. That's your right as webmaster, of course, but it's highly partisan.

Again, Misplaced Pages does not purport to be a shopping or other howto manual. People are free to google "ugg fake ripoff" or whatever if they wish. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I have added a picture of a male ugg wearer as there is a female ugg wearer shown, (I must add that when that image was put up it wasn't discussed so why mine has to be is very discriminitive).

The picture is royalty free and depicts a male wearinng ugg boots, I can take another image of just a guy in some jeans and so you can just see the Uggs if necessary.

Beefbaker (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has had a photo of ugg boots on legs that we're told are female. (It doesn't seem to me that the sex of the wearer is important.) You're keen to add your photo of a boy wearing ugg boots. A girl isn't shown; only her legs are shown. And, sizes and color ranges aside, girls' uggs and boys' uggs don't seem significantly different. So I see no point in adding this photograph. What information does it add? (That boys wear uggs? The article says this.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what benefit does it have to the article to have a female wearer shown wearing them... when clearly at the top of the article is a pair of Ugg boots on their own. What extra information does the girl pic add that the boy pic doesn't?

I can take the picture of the top half of the body off and just show some of the legs and the boots.

IMHO, if the images have to go - both images should be removed and the generic one at the top left.

The images complement each other very well, as the top one shows generally what is worn trypically with them - jeans and a jumper.

Beefbaker (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the photo of the female legs in uggs adds little. Since a brand name is so conspicuous, my guess is that it was added by one or other of the people who insist that the only uggs are those made by one company. On the other hand (or foot), the boots do look rather different from those shown with no legs in them.

The one with female legs shows them being worn with jeans. You still haven't said what the photo that you took adds. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It adds a bit of balance. It also depicts what clothes, as I say are normally worn with them, e.g. a Jumper and some jeans - as well as the cut of the jeans. You really haven't explained why you think the female image is more important than the male image. Also, the 2 pictures create a bit of balance and actually compliment each other well, so they should stay. I am greatful you haven't engaged in an edit war and are discussing it here.

Beefbaker (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The female image isn't more important. But there's more information per pixel in it than there is in the male one. I've no reason to think that uggs are more commonly worn with any one cut of jeans than with any other; do you have any reason to think this? Whether the two photographs complement each other is a matter of taste.

The photograph looks posed -- not as if it's some stranger you snapped unawares. Is that you in the photo, or a friend? -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion over the past couple of hours and these are my thoughts. Both images of the girl in uggs and the boy in uggs should stay. They both depict different ways in which they are worn and the 2 main different styles; the classic tall and the classic short. To me, neither of the pictures look posed for; and if I had to choose one over the other, the male picture is much more informative than the female 'legs' picture as it shows them in everyday life.

I too wear Uggs (I am male as well funnily enough from Milton Keynes in the UK). 89.168.179.239 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think you're just adding a photo of a guy in Uggs for some random reason though. Are you sure this isn't a photoshoot? Doesn't look casual. Btw we don't need to like balance sexes in these pages. Plus the picture hardly focuses on his shoes. If you saw the picture alone, you'd never guess it was meant for an Ugg page like you say. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would add my two pence worth. I like both pictures they both have their uses and they both should remain here. As has been said by another anon. wikipedian they show the 2 main styles of the boots. I don't think they're talking about gender balance, just giving more information in the photos provided. They are both good photos and should stay. :)

89.168.136.126 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice the image of the boy in the ugg classic short boots was removed, so I have added a non posed image. The two pictures (the girl in the classic tall) and (the boy in the classic short) compliment each other very well. Beefbaker (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely annoyed to find an image that I took (both myself and my girlfriend wear ugg boots) and take puictures and load them on to flikr and found a picture i took which I havent had permission granted to add on here. I have removed the offending image and reported it to wiki. Wham bam mam (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of Trademark

Requesting comment on the treatment of a trademarked name. Ugg ® is owned by one company, Deckers Corporation, and yet this entry talks about a "style of sheepskin boot". This would be the equivalent of making a Misplaced Pages entry on "Jaguar" and discussing all sports cars wouldn't it? This entry seems to make the brand name generic, dismissing global registration and recognition of a brand name. Seems like it needs to be corrected. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The specific term, UGG, is a registered trademark in some countries. However, in Australia and New Zealand, that trademark has been removed, as the term is and has been in common usage to describe the style of boot, and its use predates that trademark. This article is primarily about the style as it was developed in those countries, not the specific product, and about the trademark dispute. However, the trademark is discussed in the relevant "Trademark" section. Perhaps a closer analogy would be if a company trademarked "Hatchback" - it would then be possible to have an article about the type of car, an article about the specific car using the trademark Hatchback, or an article that describes both. - Bilby (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• This situation is like that of the Hoover brand of vacuum cleaners: a trademark in its own right, but one whose name is also a term that describes other products of its type. The Hoover page is complicated, because Hoover is also a surname, but the vacuum cleaner point is addressed as follows: "Any vacuum cleaner, although originally a particular brand of The Hoover Company". The general use is mentioned first and the specific case is mentioned second. We can infer that we can legitimately discuss the general product even when the name is trademarked. There are references that suggest the term Ugg was used as a general description for a type of shoe before the registration of the trademark, as well as references that suggest the same is true today. Therefore, it must be legitimate to discuss Ugg as a general term, as well as a specific brand. I don't see any merit in the request here. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Previously uninvolved RFC comment: Actually, this seems appropriate to me. Perhaps there should be some more material about their introduction in the US, but it is clear that this is a generic term where the style originates. Cool Hand Luke 16:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Pace Bilby, but I don't think it's like "Hoover"/"hoover". Without Hoover the company, there'd be no "hoovers"; by contrast, we have solid evidence that "uggs" long predate the registration anywhere of a trademark for "Ugg" (or "UGG"). The request assumes "global registration and recognition of a brand name" but the former is a fiction (it's registered in various nations but not globally) and I've seen no evidence yet that "Ugg" is recognized globally as a brand name. "Ugg" is a generic term and the article is thus right to treat it so; it is also a registered trademark in some parts of the world and the article seems to reflect this fairly, although improvements might be possible. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation with UGG is analogous to that of "Hoover" - it is a registered trademark in the entire world except for Australia and New Zealand. Even in those countries, though, the term was originally a trademark - valid trademark registrations were granted in Australia in 1970 and 1982, and in New Zealand in 1972. This makes clear that the trademark offices in these countries viewed the term as a trademark in the past (through 2005 when the Australian registrations were removed).

Outside of Australia and New Zealand, UGG is widely known as a brand and Deckers owns trademark registrations for the term (registrations in the U.S., Europe, China, Japan, Korea, etc, are referenced in the Misplaced Pages article). In the U.S., the validity of the UGG trademark was challenged by an Australian in 2004. A U.S. court considered the issue and determined that UGG was indeed a valid trademark in the U.S.. In considering the issue, the court noted that a survey conducted in the U.S. comfirmed that U.S. consumers widely viewed the term as a trademark.  : "Defendant's evidence fails to demonstrate the UGG mark is generic. Defendants have ignored the survey evidence ... clearly demonstrating that the term is not generic. ... Among those survey respondents that had an opinion, 84% thought that UGG was a brand name and not a generic name."

The primary problem with the Misplaced Pages article is that when it indicates that "ugg" refers to a type of boot (i.e., generic), it takes the situation as it exists only in Australia/New Zealand and wrongly implies that this applies to the entire world. It clearly does not - outside of Australia UGG is known as a brand name and to say that "ugg is a type of footwear" is plainly wrong. Because Misplaced Pages is a global resource, it is not accurate for the UGG entry to adopt a definition that exists only in one country and to imply that it exists globally. The article should make clear that while the term may be generic in Australia for a type of boot, in the rest of the world it is a brand name. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You say:

A U.S. court considered the issue and determined that UGG was indeed a valid trademark in the U.S.. In considering the issue, the court noted that a survey conducted in the U.S. comfirmed that U.S. consumers widely viewed the term as a trademark.  : "Defendant's evidence fails to demonstrate the UGG mark is generic. Defendants have ignored the survey evidence ... clearly demonstrating that the term is not generic. ... Among those survey respondents that had an opinion, 84% thought that UGG was a brand name and not a generic name."

If true, this would only be applicable to the US. That aside, do you have a reference for it? The exact wording would be interesting. After all, the orthography of "UGG" (or even "Ugg") pretty much implies a trademark.

"Is 'biro' a trademark?" "no"

"Is 'Biro' a trademark?" "don't know"

"Is 'BIRO' a trademark?" "yes"

Further, the quote above is not merely about the anomalously capitalized word "UGG" but about "the UGG mark". Out of context, we can only guess at the intended meaning of this. Incidentally, your list of contributions shows that for over ten months you have had an exclusive interest in uggs (or, if you prefer, in "UGG boots"). This is of course your right, but it's most curious. -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots originate in Australia / New Zealand; therefore it is appropriate that the situation in these countries be described first, followed by that of the rest of the world. In any case the proportion of space in the article devoted to the trademark situation would seem to be somewhat undue. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not like Hoover. The generic usage came first with ugg boots. That some clever marketer trademarked a generic name (or was even allowed to) is of note. HiLo48 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• The articles describes a style of boots that originated in Australia/New Zealand, according to sources they have been manufactured as Ugg/Ug/Ugh boots since 1933, the trade mark only came into effect in 1971 this again according to sources. There is clear dispute over the validity of the trademark to the point that the trademark was extinguished(via legal action) in there place of origin all of this is a significant part of the Ugg boot history. Decker Industries is only one manfacturer and retailer of the product but they happen to have a registered trademark, if Decker has made contributions to the style then that should be included but I cant find any sources to do that with. Overall there isnt any WP:UNDUE weight within the article based on sources available, and the trademark issues are covered neutrally within the article. What I cant see is any sources that support Decker as the inventor of Uggs, are more appropriate comparison would to that of Cloggs Gnangarra 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think some kind of evidence about the likely intention of those who visit the page would be useful in deciding the focus. Absent this, sales of the differing boot would be useful. If Ugg boots are no more than a niche product outside of Australia and NZ, then it would be appropriate to put the article from an Australian context, in the same way as Vegemite. VeryRusty (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's ever possible to get evidence of the intentions of people visiting a WP page. But as for "niche product", I happen to be in Japan, and here plenty of people wear uggs. I'd never pay any attention to the brand if it weren't for all the hoohah right here about registered trademarks, but now that I do pay attention I see that many say "UGG" on a label at the back, many say "EMU" instead, and a number tastefully refrain from advertising themselves. (For what little my "OR" is worth.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• I think that the current lead is clear enough about the subject, and that Misplaced Pages should have an article about the style of boots, regardless of manufacturer, rather than an article about a single manufacturer's product line. That one manufacturer has been successful in promoting a name brand in one country doesn't matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The style itself is notable, but its the controversy over the use of the style as a trademark/brand by a company outside of the objects place of origin. Its this issue that makes its worthy of inclusion but this RFC is about whether this article about the style should be prefaced with identification of the style being trademarked and be limited to only cover the product perscribed by the trademark inessence make this WP:ADVERTISING and rewrite the history of Ugg boots inaccordance to the perspective of the trademark holder. Gnangarra 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I must not have been clear: This article should be about sheepskin boots, as defined broadly by multiple manufacturers, and not about the sheepskin boots as defined by a single manufacturer (i.e., the one that trademarked a generic name in some countries). That is, this article is, and should be, about ugg boots, not about UGG® brand boots by Deckers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with all those that argue that ugg boots are generic first, only trademarked when refering to UGG and Decker. This article should be about the boots as a whole, if people want an article about the trademarked ones they can have it at UGG (trademark) or something. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that UGG is a registered trademark for footwear in the European Community, CTM Reg. No. 1409721. . The Community registration covers 27 countries. CTM Trademark Definition As of April 2010, UGG is a registered trademark in 137 countries and is pending registration in 27 more. --Factchk (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual innaccuracies and more on trademark in Aust/NZ

There are several errors in the original entry:

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs) are unisex sheepskin boots, lined with wool on the inside and with a tanned outer surface. The UGG name and variants thereof have been brands since 1971, and in some countries the Ugg trademark is still upheld, but in Australia and New Zealand the trademark was removed from the registry and ugg is considered a generic name of a style of boot.

The statement that the boots are “lined with wool” is inaccurate. The boots are made with twin-face sheepskin. A piece of twin-face sheepskin has been treated on both the fleece side and the skin side. There is no separate lining.

Go ahead and edit the article with citations. Donama (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement "in Australia and New Zealand the trademark was removed from the registry” is incorrect. UGG AUSTRALIA & Design is a registered trade mark in both Australia and New Zealand. Australia Reg. No. 785466 , New Zealand Reg. No. 305032 . In Ref. 1 an Australian registration for UGH-BOOTS was removed from the registry for non-use, but Deckers’ UGG AUSTRALIA registration was upheld by the Australian Trademark Office.

Calling on the other editors who've dealt with this issue already to check these links. Donama (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is about the use of "UGH-BOOT" as a registered trademark. As far as I can tell, the January 2006 decision on UGH-BOOT found against Deckers, removing the term UGH-BOOT from the registry. The document linked to above is a separate case questioning the use of UGG AUSTRALIA as a trademark with the accompanying logo. This was found for Deckers. The former allowed the use of the term "Ugg boots" in Australia by anyone, while the latter allowed Deckers to continue to use "UGG AUSTRALIA" as their trademark. Which seems reasonable enough to me. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that “ugg is considered a generic name of a style of boot” is also incorrect. UGG is a registered trademark throughout the world. In 2005 the validity of the UGG trademark was upheld by the Federal Court in Los Angles, California.

This has already been discussed at length, and users disagree with you. Donama (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to disagree on matters of opinion but facts are facts. UGG is a registered trademark worldwide and the validity of the UGG trademark has been upheld in multiple decisions in multiple countries. For example: the United States, Netherlands UDRP , and United Kingdom Please review these references. I don’t think this is a debatable issue. The only reliable contrary reference is the UGH-BOOTS decision in Australia, and that fact is referenced in the revised text.--Factchk (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no debate that UGG is a registered trademark of Deckers. However, there is also no debate that Ugg Boot is a generic term to describe a style of footwear that appears to have originated in the country where the term was first used. This article is about the generic style of footwear, and uses the appropriate terminology, rather than the specific brand, but it rightly acknowledges and discusses issues surrounding the UGG brand. Thus the lead should start with the generic term, and then mention the brand, rather than the other way around. - Bilby (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A term cannot be both a trademark and a generic term in a given place. Whether it is one or the other depends on consumer perceptions that may be differnt from place to place. Outside of Australia, UGG the brand name for one company. In Australia and only in Australia is it considered a generic name for a syle of boot. Those facts are accurratley reflected in the in the first paragraph. I agree that details on the status of the UGG tradmark are better left to the later paragraph, which is also badly in need of an edit.--Factchk (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for companies trying to protect their brands, it can indeed be both in terms of how people use it. See Xerox, Kleenex etc. I have no doubt those brands are trademarked, but their protected usage -- in the common vernacular -- has been long since usurped. — e. ripley\ 11:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is about balance. The article is not about the specific item of footwear produced by Decker, but about the generic style of footwear known as Ugg Boots in their countries of origin. Thus the lead should reflect that aspect first, and the existence of a trademarked term second. If the article was about Deckers or the specific UGG AUSTRALIA brand then the balance would go the other way, with the focus on the brand first, and the generic term second. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby's assessment. — e. ripley\ 11:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Bilby. This article is about the boots, not the trademark dispute. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Further details with regard to the legal status of the UGG trademark are better left to the Trademark section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchk (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, I agree that it is important to discuss the boots. However, when a proprietary term is used, it essential to identify it as such at the outset. The full discussion of the trademark issues can be placed below. See for example the treatment in Misplaced Pages for Jeep, Astro-Turf, Band-Aid and Xerox. Each of these articles are about the product, but accurately and properly identify the term as a trademark in the initial sentence. The Jeep listing is a good example to follow. --Factchk (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, I dispute your assertion “that (from a historical perspective) the original name for the style was, and is, ugg boot, not sheepskin boot.” Research indicates that Anthony Sidney James Stedman registered UGH-BOOTS and UGH as trade marks in Australia – the first trade mark registered from January 25, 1971. Australia Registration of UGH-BOOTS 1971 A number of Australian dictionaries have been consulted. A Dictionary of Austral English (1972),[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857665/morris-austral-english-pdf-april-14-2010-2-33-pm-121k?da=y Edward E. Morris, A Dictionary of Austral English, (Sydney:Syndey University Press), 1972] The Australian Language (1966) and The Australian National Dictionary (1988)[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857660/australian-national-dictionary-pdf-april-14-2010-2-29-pm-253k?da=y The Australian National Dictionary, ed W. S. Ramson, (Melbourne:Oxford University Press), 1988] None show an entry of “ug / ugg/ ugh” in reference to sheepskin footwear prior to the Macquarie dictionary in 1981. For decades, Macquarie’s listed “ugh boot” with the notation “” indicating trademark origin. The entry for “ugh boot” in The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2d ed 2004) also indicates that the term is proprietary.[http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857762/australian-oxford-dictionary-pdf-april-14-2010-3-47-pm-455k?da=y Australian Oxford Dictionary, ed. Bruce Moore, (Melbourne: Oxford University Press), 2004] Essentially all evidence of boot makers using the term generically is post 1971. There is a dearth of credible evidence showing that UGG or UGH was in common generic use in Australia prior to 1971. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to say: Although UGH started out as a trademark, at some point it fell into generic use in Australia. --Factchk (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just quickly, Brian Smith noted that the term was in use in Australia prior to 1971 when it was first trademarked, and given that he's the guy who is said to have introduced the style to the United States, I figure he should be a reasonably valid source. More importantly, when the trademark was challenged in Australia, it was found that there was sufficient evidence of prior use in the country. The dictionaries, I'm afraid, don't count for much either way, as dictionaries are never fully inclusive, and, as noted in the findings for the Australian trademark case, editors of dictionaries are not experts in the legal status of words, but in their meanings. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, what is your source? Brian Smith said that UGH was in use in Australia prior to his adoption of the UGG brand in America in 1978. I stand by my statement, supported by reliable sources, that UGH / UGG was not in common generic use in Australia prior to Stedman’s adoption of UGH as a trade mark. I agree that dictionaries are not authoritative on legal issues, but they do show what words are in the common vernacular. The absence of any UGH or UGG listing for sheepskin footwear prior to 1981 is telling. The Australian UGH-BOOTS decision refers to evidence that the terms “ug, ugh and ugg” were used generically in the 1970s, 1980s and later. There is no evidence mentioned that predates Stedman’s 1971 trade mark registration.--Factchk (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article: Higgins, Pamm (October 2001). "Booty Call". Los Angeles Magazine 46 (10): 75. ISSN 1522-9149. "We always called them Uggs," Smith says, "long before it was a trademarked brand." Then you have the claims by Frank Mortel that they've being calling them Uggs since the late 1950's. - Bilby (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, Smith was talking about his registration of the UGG trademark in the 1980’s. There is no indication that he referring to Australia prior to Stedman’s registration in 1971. Mortel is a competitor of Deckers. It is a self-serving statement with no documentary support.--Factchk (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's where we run into a problem. Smith didn't say "before it was a trademarked brand in the US", at least according to the quote. Thus it seems reasonable to assume he was referring to when it was first trademarked, and that was in '71. And yes, Mortel is a competitor, but why should I therefore believe Decker over Mortel, any more than you would believe Mortel over Decker? The problem, of course, is proving a negative: Decker is hard pressed to prove that it wasn't used before 1971, and the Australian trademark case was about the use of the term, not about when it was first used. What we know is that it is a generic term in Australia, and has been from at least the 70's, with arguments that it has been used for a lot longer than that. And we know that it is an Australian style of boot. Thus it continues to make sense to me to describe it in the terms of the country of origin. That said, I still think mentioning the existence of a trademarked brand makes a lot of sense, too - I'd just like to give equal weight to both. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough

Factchk, you seem unable to take no for an answer. This being so, argue your point here more persuasively. Without prior agreement here, your (or anybody's) continuing efforts to promote the "UGG" brand name within the lead of the article will be taken as disruptive and lead to a block. If you think that you're up against an unthinking majority here, then you're free to appeal for fresh, thinking people by launching an "RFC". -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, whether it wouldn't be better to cut the Gordian knot and move this article to Sheepskin boots. The rationale would be that "Ugg boots" lacks the necessary precision because it fails to distinguish between the generic product and the trademarked product. The article could then begin

Sheepskin boots, known as Ugg boots in countries where the UGG trademark is not protected, are....

Hesperian 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That may help, as in that case the whole trademark issue becomes moot. I still have two concerns, though. The first is that I can see "sheepskin boots" referring to any boot made from sheepskin, whether or not they match the ugg style, although I'm not sure how big an issue that would be. The second is that we still get back to the basic problem that "ugg boot" was in usage prior to being trademarked as the common term to describe a style of boot. That it was later trademarked is interesting, but but doesn't deny the earlier usage, and means that (from a historical perspective) the original name for the style was, and is, ugg boot, not sheepskin boot. Anyway, if consensus is for this I certainly won't object, although we might need to play with the wording.

To be honest, though, this all seems a tad odd. The first line of the lead just describes the boot, irrespective of whether you think of it as a generic style or as a particular brand. The second line then makes it clear that the name is trademarked in some countries. It is only after that that we mention how it is also a generic name for the style. Hence we get description, followed by trademark claim, followed by generic usage, which actually seems to be weighted towards the trademark to me. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of what "sheepskin boots" refers to occurred to me too, so I did a Google Image Search on the term, and came up with pages and pages and pages of uggs. It does seems as though the terms are synonymous. If they are not, then the sheepskin boots redirect will need to be eliminated. Hesperian 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, companies that had previously sold as ugg boots were forced to sell as sheepskin boots due to the trademark issues, except in Australia and NZ. So I'm not surprised that the images for sheepskin boots will be of that style. I don't know if a non-fleece lined boot made of sheepskin would also use the term, which is where I get a tad lost. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sheepskin boots, known as Ugg boots in countries where the UGG trademark is not protected, are.... -- whether or not Deckers happens to like it, I think it would be more realistic to say Sheepskin boots, known as ugg boots or uggs regardless of the local status of the UGG trademark, are.... (However, I don't claim to know.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hoary here. In fact, I don't see why the trademark even needs to be mentioned in the lead. Sure if I was Deckers I'd be out there trying to push my POV on Misplaced Pages, but we have WP:NPOV that says we are to aim for neutra-targeted text. Fact remains that, for encyclopaedia readers, "what are ugg boots?" is answered by "sheepskin boots (possibly a subset, we're still not sure) that at best guess originated in NZ/Australia at such and such a time. And by the way, the term UGG has been trademarked in various places at various times but this has little to do with explaining what ugg boots are". Donama (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree with you Donama, I don't see how -- in a holistic sense -- the trademark dispute is enough to mention it in the lead. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to edit war over and as a compromise position a brief mention is acceptable to me. I am ambivalent about moving the article to sheepskin boots. — e. ripley\ 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, democracy is wonderful, but facts should not be determined by popular vote. Your entry (“in some countries the Ugg trademark is still upheld, but in Australia and New Zealand, where the boots appear to have originated, ugg boot is a generic name”) is factually inaccurate. Donoma, your POV is valid only in Australia not in the rest of the English speaking world. The facts are that UGG is a registered trademark in essentially every country of the world and has been upheld in decisions in the U.S., the Netherlands, U.K., China, Turkey, Sweden, Korea, Singapore, and UDRP. When proprietary terms are used, it is proper to identify them as such in the onset. See, Misplaced Pages entries for Jeep, Astro-Turf and BandAid. When you post inaccurate statements, it misleads encyclopedia readers. The edits I have made are supported with facts, as shown in the above citations. I hope you agree that this strikes a proper balance. The goal is to make the page accurate, and as revised it does not to promote Deckers. I am comfortable proceeding with Misplaced Pages’s procedures for resolving this issue, but am hopeful that reason will win out and intervention will not be necessary. If you disagree we can issue an RFC. If you have reliable sources for your position, please share them. Again, please review the citations I have provided. --Factchk (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept Hoary’s suggestion to create a Sheepskin Boot re-direct. The lead should read: Sheepskin boots, known as ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, where UGG is not an exclusive trademark, … Mentioning Australia and New Zealand is appropriate for historical reasons, and to my knowledge they are the only countries where UGG is not an exclusive trademark. If you have different information, please comment. --Factchk (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any such suggestion about an article titled "Sheepskin boots" or similar. Perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else.

Actually I agreed to the suggestion above, but with a alteration with which you disagree.

Yes, UGG is a registered trademark in many countries. But the article, however titled, is not about this one brand of uggs, it's about any brand of uggs. Like it or not, sheepskin boots are known as ugg boots or uggs in many countries other than Australia and New Zealand. Here is one (boring) example, from a website that appears to be US based (though I'm not sure).

No, I am not going to issue an RFC. There's just been one. If you want to issue another one, you're welcome to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, your statement, “Like it or not, sheepskin boots are known as ugg boots or uggs in many countries other than Australia and New Zealand” is not true, which is the whole point here. Your citation “Here” is a 2010 web article by a fellow from Perth, Western Australia, which accordingly is not a reliable source for how a word is used outside of Australia. The article itself is inaccurate because Oprah several times named UGG brand footwear as her favorite things, i.e., not a generic type of sheepskin footwear. See these two examples from 2007: Oprah’s Favorite Things 2007 $100-$250, Oprah’s Favorite Things 2007 and this example from 2003. In 2005, the Federal Court in California ruled “Defendants’ 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.” See page 6 of US District Court Central District of California Case CV 04-1137-JFW (FMOx) According to this and other previously mentioned international decisions, outside of Australia, UGG is a footwear brand.--Factchk (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So make an article about this one footwear brand, if you think it's so important. Meanwhile, this article is about uggs in general. Do you want it retitled "sheepskin boots" or similar, or do you insist on simply hijacking it to turn it into an article on a single company? -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is getting rather tiresome. — e. ripley\ 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Horay, because UGG is a brand name it must be identified as such. See Wiki articles on Jeep, Astro_turf and Band-Aid. We wouldn’t write an article on automobiles and title it “Mercedes” would we? An article on “Sheepskin boots” is entirely appropriate to report generically on the style of boot.--Factchk (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point you've ignored consensus enough that I will be reporting you for tendentious editing and edit warring, and we'll let an admin decide whether you've stepped over the line or not. — e. ripley\ 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The report can be found at the bottom of this page Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — e. ripley\ 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No it can't. It can instead be found here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I updated it on his talk page but neglected to do so here (thank you for the flag to it). — e. ripley\ 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about this business. I think that Factchk's argument is improving and has some merit. Moreover, he argues after being invited to do so.

Putting aside the matter of the use of the term "ugg" (very deliberately lowercase) in Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else, can we agree that "UGG" is one company's registered trademark in much of the world for its brand of sheepskin boot, and that this brand of sheepskin boot is sufficiently notable to merit coverage in WP?

If we agree on this, then the next question would be of whether "UGG" brand boots should (a) have their own section within an article on the generic boots, (b) be covered within the article on Deckers Outdoor Corporation (yes, an article already exists), or (c) get their own article. (I don't think that anyone has suggested that the generic style shouldn't have an article.)

If the answer to this is (a), then I'd say that the article may also have a section on "EMU" brand and perhaps other boots.

But whether the answer is (a), (b) or (c), what's the preferred name for the generic boots? (I think of them as "uggs" myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, this isn't ideal and I would have liked to see him just stop trying to shove his version through, but I had no confidence that would suddenly start happening after yesterday's edit; arguing's fine, good even if it's productive, repeatedly reverting against consensus isn't.

To the rest, I personally don't think that there needs to be a separate article for UGG the brand, considering that there's both already an article for Deckers and also, for the generic usage here. I think some kind of separate section would probably be appropriate for both articles (Deckers and here) to varying degrees (and would also agree that if we do that within this article, it'd be appropriate to outline other major brands as you mentioned). Though, with that being said, I wouldn't object if someone proposed to create an article specifically for UGG brand boots, since there's some precedent here for creating articles about specific shoe brand models (Air Force 1 (shoe) is what immediately comes to mind). In terms of generic reference point, I also tend to think of them as just "uggs" (rather than "ugg boots"). Maybe it should be moved to that? I don't really have an opinion about moving them to something like Sheepskin boots, if that is what folks think is preferable that's fine with me. — e. ripley\ 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only generic term for the style is ugg boot, or variants thereof - at least, in Australia, that's the normal way of referring to them. I don't know what they are referred to as elsewhere. I'm not sure that moving it to a variant will help, though, noting that Decker used UGH-BOOT and argued against variants as well, as far as I understand it. I still don't understand the problem, though, in that the first line of the lede has always been generic - it describes a style of boot, which is just as applicable to UGG brand is it is to the generic style:

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs) are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface.

That same line could go on an article about the specific brand and still be a viable way of opening it. Then we used to note (and I'd have no complaints if we do so again) that there is both a trademarked instance of that style and a generic style. The opening made the article neutral, in that covered both usages at roughly the same time, but Factchk seemed to want to push one usage above the other, which was (and is) my ongoing concern. - Bilby (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Factchk is the latest in a series of editors to point out that "UGG" is a registered trademark in much of the world. I happen to think that this results from a bizarre serial refusal to acknowledge that "ugg" is a well established English word; but trademark registrations, no matter how inane, do register those trademarks until they're overturned. Factchk asks us to compare this article with, among others, Jeep. Like it or not (and I don't), the first sentence of that article reads "Jeep is an automobile marque (and registered trademark) of Chrysler": Deckers' claims get much less prominent treatment. I'd be inclined to fix the disparity by deemphasizing trademark registration within Jeep and others, but anyway a series of SPAs is likely to continue banging on here about how "UGG" is a registered trademark where most readers live. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that there is a different experience in Australia (and New Zealand) as compared to the rest of the English speaking world. The primary significance of the word UGG outside of Australia is the brand of a single company. In the U.S. Canada, Europe, etc. the generic term for this style of footwear is “sheepskin boot.” See, for example the websites for EMU, Koolaburra, and Warmbat. --Factchk (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, I disagree that “ugg” is an established English word. It is not a bizarre case of a hundred trademark offices, and numerous courts, dictionary editors, etc. getting it wrong. It is a different perspective that ought to be respected. If we really want to create a global entry that accurately represents this style of boot, we cannot use the heading “Ugg Boot” without causing confusion for a lot of people and doing harm to the trademark. The suggestion has been made to re-title the article “Sheepskin Boots” which is the right thing to do. The disambiguation page for “Ugg” could be updated accordingly to link to “Sheepskin boots”. Further, I have no problem including in the article that “ugg boots” and other terminology is used to identify / describe the boots in different countries as long as it is accurate. See for example Aspirin. The trademark dispute discussion could remain or moved to an UGG Trademark page. --Factchk (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article remains titled “Ugg Boots” then it is proper to note that the term is a registered trademark – as has been done in many Wiki articles: Jeep, Astro_turf, Band-Aid, Xerox, Coca-Cola and Kleenex, just to name a few. The Kleenex article is an interesting example in that it begins with a notice: “This article is about the Kleenex brand. For the band, see Kleenex_(band). For the generic item, see Facial_tissue.” --Factchk (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that all sheepskin boots are ugg boots. Ugg boots are a particular style or design of sheepskin boots. Thus, redirecting this to 'sheepskin boots' doesn't make sense. As to stating that ugg is a trademark, the article mentions that already. In fact there's a whole section called 'Trademark'. Donama (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed, 1997) has this entry:

Ugg /0ʌg/ adjective. M20.

Ugg boot, a kind of soft sheepskin boot (proprietary name).

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary gives more detailed definition: "In Australia ugg boots and variants like ug, ugh or uggs are used generically. A trademark of UGH-BOOTS was registered in 1971 but was not enforced and generic users of the terms successfully applied for its removal in 2006 (Deckers Outdoor Corporation v B&B McDougal ATMO 5 (16 January 2006))." Donama (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Jeep, Astro_turf, and Band-Aid are really good comparisons because these terms originated out of the trademarked product through general use and market dominance. Ugg boots is the exact opposite the term was an established well before it became a trademark, in one country US the trademark was then sold to a corporation and who registered it elsewhere. Since then the Deckers had tried to rewrite the origins of Ugg boots, the trademark was then overturned by an Australian court which disolved the trademark in Australia and NZ by recognising the terms cultural origins and significance, Decker did not challenge that decision. This article should follow the same outline, with the lead describing design, origin expansion inot international markets. It should also mention the term Sheepskin boots as an alternative name/decsription for Ugg boots because of the enforcement of a trademark. The trademark should be a separate paragraph which gives a brief synopsis of how it evolved and then how its been subject of court decisions. The article should be very clear that the design and origin of the boots is not Deckers but that Decker holds the Trademark to the term "UGG" in most countries and that because of this the style of boot is called sheepskin boots except where court decisions have recognised the cultural significance/origins of the Ugg Boot Gnangarra 04:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point of view is factually incorrect.

One, in the MacDougal decision, Deckers Australian trade mark registration for UGH-BOOTS was removed solely for non-use (See paragraphs 2, 39 and 43). Deckers Australian trade mark registration for UGG AUSTRALIA was upheld by IP Australia and remains validly registered in Australia and New Zealand.

Second, legal arguments that the UGG trademark is invalid or a generic term have been repeatedly rejected by the courts in several countries. USA, UDRP (UDRP Decision 217320 UDRP Decision 225456 UDRP Decision 216873) The Netherlands, and United Kingdom

Third, there is no credible support for the argument that “ugg or ugh boots” was commonly or widely used in Australia prior to Shane Stedman adopting it as a trade mark in the 1960’s and registering it in 1971. The MacDougal decision references use of the “ug, ugg and ugh” terms as a product description in the 1970’s but not before. The “ugg” term did not appear in any dictionary in reference to boots until the 1980’s and then it was listed a proprietary term. Accordingly, at some point the term lost its exclusive trade mark significance in Australia, but is not clear when that occurred. I fully agree that the style of boot was of Australian origin, albeit when and how is matter of legend - difficult to separate fact from fantasy. We do not know what it was originally called – one legend is that it was called “fug” by WWI pilots.

Regardless, the issue here is what to call the thing and more specifically what to title the article. Currently, in Australia it is called an “ugg boot,” but in the rest of the world it is currently called a “sheepskin boot.” Given that this article should have significance outside of Australia, it should be titled “Sheepskin boot” as that is the universal term. As other commentators have pointed out, this article should be about the boot and not about the brand of one company. As long as the article is titled “Ugg boots” it will be recognized by non-Aussie readers as that the brand of one company, and I for one will continue to insist that it be correctly identified as a “trademark” or “proprietary.” --Factchk (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the POV of the Decker representative, Misplaced Pages is not here to rewrite history to views of that expressed by the company representative. You clearly have a WP:COI are a WP:SPA the article gives coverage of your trademark and the fact that your company disputes that Ugg boots ever existed prior to it. When people read the article they see that Ugg boots existed before the trademark was registered, they'll see that Ugg boots originated in Australia/New Zealand, because thats what a enecyclopaedia does it gives the whole story and lets people use their intelligence. There is no bias in writing the about Ugg boots originated, there no bias in including the trademark holders position and issues, the bias comes when the article is renamed to reflect the view of a single POV. Gnangarra 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• What the... According to Trove the National Library of Australia new search engine and subject to actual verification, The West Australian newspaper carried an advertisement for Ugg Boots 7 October 1922, I know its only 49 years before the trademark was registered but .... Gnangarra 23:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gnangarra – Please do not misrepresent me. My comments are factually accurate as supported by the cited references, which is in the ultimate interest of the encyclopedia.--Factchk (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: I have been following the debate for a few months now. We don't appear to be any closer to a solution now then we were then. Discussion about Trademarks is only going to get us so far, because a trademark is only evidence of a legal application or proceeding. It seems like there are fundamentally two points of view here, both neutral. Can I suggest that the page Ugg boots become a disam page only, and that we create two new pages, perhaps Ugg boots: Australia and New Zealand and ] with cross links at the top of each page. VeryRusty (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademark Revisions

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

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

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

Possible Counterfeiting Section

Misplaced Pages has an article on counterfeits Counterfeit. The Wiki Louis Vuitton article has a section on counterfeits. Louis_vuitton Accordingly, there is Wiki precedent for this. The proposed report on the counterfeiting of UGG boots is based on pre-existing text and is factual and objective:

Deckers continually monitors usage of the UGG trademark on the World Wide Web, using legal means to shut down auctions and websites that infringe their trademark. The Australian Trade Marks Office, IP Australia cautions:

“A trade mark registered under Australia's trade mark laws only provides rights for trade within Australia's borders. Trade mark laws are national laws and each country registers and protects trade marks within their own jurisdiction.”

“The Internet provides easy access to global markets and takes no account of national borders. If you are trading on the Internet you need to understand the laws of the country into which you are selling goods or services. If you place an offer for sale on the Internet in Australia that invites purchase from overseas, this can amount to trading overseas and could leave you vulnerable to legal action and expensive litigation. Likewise an overseas proprietor selling goods in Australia via the Internet may infringe an Australian trade mark.”

Law enforcement officials in Great Britain, US, and China have reported seizures of counterfeit UGG boots in UK, US, China, and Singapore. In response to counterfeits being sold on the Internet, people have generated websites, blogs and videos on how to spot fake UGG boots: nancysueh, RealorFakeUK, BucketsofUGGs, IssandMeg6, immysweetie, lolasayswhat, FleeceFootwear, upsoest93, Yourpick09.

Before posting this, are there any comments/revisions from other editors?--Factchk (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As this is an article about the generic boot, I would not support the inclusion of this type of information here, generally speaking. Perhaps in the article on the company itself, and maybe broadened out to discuss how it protects all of its trademarks. There are also problems with the specific text -- a recitation of cautionary text from the Australian Trade Marks office is irrelevant. I also see no need to include any links at all about fake Ugg boots much less 9, particularly when most (maybe all) are of dubious informational value and not exactly up to reliable sourcing standards -- one goes to an eBay review page and 6 are to YouTube videos. No. — e. ripley\ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Factchk, there are precedents in Misplaced Pages for all sorts of atrocities. Though actually that section of the article on "Louis Vuitton" is mediocre rather than atrocious: it has no lengthy quotation and is sourced to specified newspaper articles and unspecified pages of a 750-page book. ¶ As has been pointed out before, this is an article in Misplaced Pages about uggs. It's not an article in some marketing encyclopedia about one brand. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a counterfeiting section is appropriate in the article as I've already stated elsewhere. This is not the concern of Misplaced Pages.Donama (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also dont think a countereiting section would be appropriate because fo the trademark dispute and the fact that boots sold under the trade mark outside of Australia & New Zealand are made in China. We would be unable to appropriately define what is counterfeit and still comply with WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing in the trademarks section

The information for much (possibly all) of this section does not meet Misplaced Pages's policies, as much of it is supported by primary sources. Primary sources are discouraged because they don't provide adequate context. For instance, a trademark could be registered, but looking at a primary source of that registration wouldn't show a court had ruled that it's not enforceable.

From WP:PRIMARY: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Primary sources aren't disallowed, but they should only be used with caution, and preferably with secondary sources to back up the way our articles describe them. The policy also specifically notes that entire articles should not be justified by primary sourcing. I'd suggest that entire lengthy sections in an article also should not be justified by primary sourcing. There are few secondary sources cited in the trademarks section. The information in this section supported by primary sources that can't be supported by secondary sources should probably be taken out. — e. ripley\ 19:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for a general-purpose encyclopedic article to have all the fluff detail in the trademark section. It looks to me as if the section is trying to establish a certain legal position, and that is simply not the role of Misplaced Pages. If there has been a serious relevant legal case, we could have a short statement concerning the situation. If we cannot provide at least one reliable secondary source that covers the trademark situation, then we should just delete the entire section as irrelevant for anyone wanting to read about Ugg boots. If someone feels that there is some useful information from that section which should be retained, please say what it is (with a secondary source). Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(Currently Wikistalking Johnuniq, sorry!). I would say that the fact sheet issued by IP Australia is a perfectly adequate secondary source. Now, I agree that there does seem to be a lot more information than there needs to be, and it's a little confusing as a section, but I'd stop some way short of deleting the whole section.

Also, I'd say that the online registrations are secondary sources, not primary sources, as they are maintained and published by the relevant trade mark office, not the owner of the mark. The registration would also most likely be updated to reflect any court decisions on its validity/enforceability. That's not to say that you should list every registration of a trademark without ANOTHER secondary source indicating that the registration is noteworthy in some way, but the registration itself is a reliable source of up to date information. GDallimore (Talk) 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:SECONDARY includes "...often making analytic or evaluative claims about them". We prefer a secondary source because it has done an analysis of a situation and is presenting the results (and of course the source must also be reliable). An editor can pick a "true" fact from some primary source and add it to an article, but a secondary source might balance that fact with an analysis (someone may have said "X is good", but an analysis might show that the remark was intended as a joke, or that their record shows that they really think X is bad). The trademark section is trying to build some sort of case by citing an indiscriminate list of factoids. What is the point of the section? Misplaced Pages needs a secondary source to verify that the information has some significance (and is not just synthesis). To put it another way, if there is no reliable secondary source with an analysis of the significance of a situation, it is very likely that the situation should not be covered in Misplaced Pages. It's fine to use primary sources to establish someone's birth date, or similar information that is commonly understood and regarded as significant. Other information needs secondary sourcing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aside from sources, I suspect that this section, or at least an inline mention of the trademark controversy, should exist in the article. That IP Australia, an Government agency, released a fact sheet (here) on this makes it notable. Anyway, I have tried to hone down this section to what it needs to be. But I am perfectly happy for more fluff to be removed or for this to be converted down to an inline sentence or two instead of a section. Donama (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer – due to the extraneous language used in the section I failed to notice that quite prominent and worthwhile reference. Assuming I haven't missed anything else, I now think the section should be reduced to a summary of the fact sheet (without the detail: just a couple of facts, an indication of the scope, and the reference). Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and properly written the section to describe the trademark dispute in a readable narrative fashion, sourced properly to a secondary source (UK's The Independent). I deleted the legal briefesque brick of primary source material that was there before, but if anyone thinks the primary sources that were removed should be inserted as references into the narrative I have written, please feel free. I am still searching for proper secondary sourcing about the CA and Netherlands court cases, and whether there have been unsuccessful challenges in any other countries. — e. ripley\ 12:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to check it fully, but the result looks excellent, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal For Non-Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adults wear ugg boots

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

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

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

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

Global NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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