Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

The trademark dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section Break 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section Break 2

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

I think this is a definite improvement. We’ve now clarified what the article is and is not about. I agree that there are very few secondary sources for Ugg being generic anywhere outside of Australia. The only sources that directly state how Ugg is viewed internationally are in the California and Dutch court cases. In those sources, an independent body, with nothing to gain, has impartially judged evidence presented by both sides of the argument. The court in California stated explicitly that the evidence presented by both sides was “clearly demonstrating that the term is non-generic.”[1] This is as direct a statement as we can possibly find. If we allow the IP Australia decision (which was not heard by a judge) to inform the articles position on ugg in Australia then we have to allow these two as well.--Factchk (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Flakinho, 17 August 2010

Just to add an interwiki link: "[[es:Botas UGG]]"

Flakinho (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Gnan garra 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Phoenix & Winslow, 18 August 2010

1. Simply to replace the image at the top of the page with this one. [2] All images currently in the article mainspace appear to be from Uggs-N-Rugs. This clearly favors one manufacturer over all the others. I think this photo was in the article earlier and it would be interesting to learn who removed it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better if we keep the current picture up the top. It represents a generic ugg boot and has no visible branding. I can't tell if it's an Uggs-N-Rugs ugg boot because of that and am doubtful it is anyway because it looks 50 years old! The image you're asking to replace it with has very visible branding which I don't think is appropriate in an article primarily about the generic item. Donama (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a brand name. If you think the article has undue material promoting some other business, we need to discuss how to remove that undue material, not try to balance it with blatant promotions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Ugg branded picture looks a looks a lot better. Further, as least as far as the USA is concerned, there's only one Ugg brand boots, trademarked 25 years ago. I see no harm in such a case. I do not think it would be misleading or advantageous in the slightest to see Ugg on the picture--it's been around for 25 years after all. Further, due to the popularity of the brand—every kid in the USA must have a pair—posting a picture of the Ugg brand boots may increase the interest in the wiki page for all ugg boots, much like Rush Limbaugh increased the popularity of all talk radio. In other words, the Ugg branded boots will improve this wiki page, and that's why we are here. At a minimum, find a far better picture of the unbranded boots, but the current one is ugly, from a picture quality point of view. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Also in the "Categories" section, we need to add [[Category:Fashion articles needing attention]] Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? Category:Fashion articles needing attention says it is for articles tagged as requiring immediate attention. What immediate attention does this article need? Johnuniq (talk)

It seems like a no-brainer to me, and not even slightly controversial, like adding the [[es:Botas ugg]] link. If this is to be developed as a genuinely generic term, rather than a celebration of Australian culture and the triumph of the little Australian David over the evil American Goliath, then it needs a significant amount of work from a fashion perspective. This term describes a particular article of clothing, like Miniskirt or Beret. What is it about getting more editors involved in this article that worries you? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Someone Going to Submit a(n) RfC?

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

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

My guess is that the issue arises from those who would like to make this article all about the generic term "ugg boot" (all Australian or New Zealander) and me, an American who believes that the article also needs to give the identical "UGG" brand name its due. One Australian company was found by a Dutch court to be counterfeiting UGG brand boots (applying the logo to its own product, and using virtually identical packaging and brochures). So the dishonest practices of at least one Australian company in the dispute are worth noting, and that company's dishonesty may have somehow percolated its way to this discussion. Careful worldwide brand promotion, coupled with the fortuitous timing of unsolicited celebrity endorsements and product placements in films and on television, grew UGG brand boots from a US$14.5 million worth of sales in 1995[3] to US$100 million by 2004. But the Australian editors, for some reason, do not find this explosive brand growth (called "exponential growth" by an American federal judge -- judges do not normally use such superlatives) to be notable enough for the article lede, and prefer to bury it in the "History" section. I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect that all of the Australian companies' annual sales combined wouldn't equal 10% of the UGG brand's sales. Furthermore, making this article about the generic term is (IMHO) an effort to make this the Australian Wikipedia. In Australia and New Zealand, it's a generic term; but in the rest of the world, it's a brand name. I suggest that the emphasis of the article should reflect WP:WEIGHT, with "brand name" as the majority opinion, and "generic term" as the minority opinion. Looking forward to your third opinion on this matter, K10wnsta. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The issues then come down to:

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

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

Hi, thanks for the offer. I haven't been following the article for a great length of time, but it seems to have been reasonably stable (although quite busy) until March of this year. Since then, we have had a number of editors, one at a time, who seem to have more interest in ugg boots (and Deckers brand ugg boots, at that) than anything else in Wikipedia, constantly editing the article so as to slant it towards being a promotional article for Deckers. These editors include an admitted sockpuppet: [4] , an implied meatpuppet: [5] , and one last who, while having a longer history on Wikipedia than the others, does occasionally lapse into incivility: [6] and accusations of conspiracy: [7] . I would suggest (and I would have done the edits myself if this fruitless debate had gone on much longer) that the most practical solution for creating a stable article would be to restore it to being about the generic style of boots, with a hatnote directing readers who want to know about ugg boots made by Deckers to the Deckers page (or that of their brand of boots, if one exists). Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not a dime has found its way into my pocket, and I could use the money! Seriously, I've never communicated with Deckers or any subsidiary, by phone, mail or e-mail. I'm not on the payroll of Deckers or any law firm or marketing firm that has Deckers as a client. I'm just a satisfied customer. But I think a similar question might reasonably be directed at our Aussie and Kiwi editors concerning their motives. By keeping any mention of the UGG brand limited, they can raise worldwide awareness of "ugg boots" as a generic term without spending a dime on marketing. This serves the commercial interests of Australian manufacturers. Budweiser is a fine example, since about 2/3 of the article is devoted to disputes over use of the word "Budweiser" to market beer.[8] It's a trademark, and it isn't contained in the name of the parent company, Anheuser-Busch, so the brand name "Budweiser" and the generic term "Budweiser" share an article. Good show, Hoary. I guess the difference on the Talk pages of those articles is that the trademark disputes were ironed out many years before Wikipedia was invented, and also the German (and Czech) countries of origin don't have a substantial presence among English Wikipedia editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Compromise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the solution proposed by User:K10wnsta. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

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

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

Just a moment, you seem to have overlooked §4.6 in the same 2008 decision: "One cannot establish the fact that this is considered a generic name in the Benelux based on the opinion of one or more companies in Australia."[9] Survey data was submitted in an American court case in 2005, indicating that an overwhelming majority of consumers perceived UGG as a brand name, not a generic term. (See page 6 of the federal court ruling.) [10] Both of these decisions address the merits of written content. These decisions indicate how courts in the rest of the world (outside of Australia and New Zealand) will react to the argument that it's a generic term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

The key phrase here is "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." If we have six reliable sources discussing "ugg boots" as a generic term, and six reliable sources of equal magnitude discussing the trademark disputes surrounding UGG brand boots, then the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" should be divided 50/50 between the two concepts. Unfortunately, what we have is a situation where sources in Australia and New Zealand describing the generic term, and most of all one particular article from a British paper (The Independent) that is extremely favorable to Australian manufacturers, receive undue weight. That article in The Independent is cited no less than ten times. Other sources of equal or greater reliability and magnitude—specifically The New York Times article of July 31, the Dutch court decision, and the American court decision—get fewer cites and are placed farther down in the article. This is a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

There's a large number of reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Aussies take up the first 2/3 of the article.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] In "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear. One article in particular[20] is favorable to Deckers. But it's excluded and the Independent article favorable to the Aussies gets cited ten times.

There are also abundant decisions in arbitration, where Deckers won and Internet domain names were removed. The first involved an Australian manufacturer, Australian Aura, but there were others as well.Australian Aura [21][22][23][24][25][26] These are all reliable sources about the trademark dispute, but instead an article in The Independent gets cited ten times. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet K10wnsta gives the opinion that this article should focus to the generic term, with a hatnote to Ugg Australia for the brand where information on sales volumes and dolar values about the brand can be given appropriate detail. The thing is if a customer wants to know about its product they are going to search for the brand name thats on the label thats on their boots adn UGG Australia doesnt label them with Ugg boots. If a person look for Ugg boots then they are going to see the origins of the boots which is why the brand is "UGG Austraia".
Thank you K10wnsta for your efforts in trying to help by giving an independent opinion of the issues your efforts and comment are appreciated. Gnan garra 13:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Gang. I learned quite a bit about quite a lot I never knew, so it was my pleasure. Prior to taking my leave of the matter, I'm going to address a couple specifics Phoenix brought up following my addendum and add a couple details from my original analysis that I ommitted.

...over half of the Budweiser article is devoted to the trademark dispute.

The Budweiser situation differs in a couple key ways:

Budweiser was not a generic term describing beer.
The issue with Budweiser is primarily between identical registered trademarks from different countries.
It has been going on for well over a century. Ugg boots only became a matter of conflict about 15 years ago (altho the seeds of that conflict were sewn in the 1970's)

I do agree with you now that the trademark issue warrants mention on this page. However, with only 2 notable legal proceedings directly addressing the matter of trademark vs. generic use (the Dutch counterfeit issue belongs on the Ugg Australia page), I can't imagine how it would justify more than 2 or 3 sentences.

...when a brand of boot goes from $14.5 million a year in 1995 to $100 million a year in 2004, that is very noteworthy. It belongs in the lede and it doesn't take up a lot of space.

That is certainly an impressive business feat, but mention of it belongs in the encyclopedia's article about that business, not a generic product they happen to produce.

...The federal judge's description of this growth as "exponential" is colorful language not normally used by a judge; I think that should be used in the lede as well.

I'm afraid including that would be, at best, synthesis, and at worst, original research.

{It's worth noting that all of the domain name arbitrations you mentioned took place prior to the Australian ruling that the trademark was invalid. Additionally, the fact that formal legal proceedings were underway in Australia was inferred as evidence in support of Decker's complaint (something that would now be a terrible liability to them in the same cases).}

I think part of the confusion may lie in the association of this with a 'viewpoint'. There is no viewpoint involved. Either ugg boots existed as a generic term for sheepskin boots or it didn't. If the term Ugg boots was the creative brainchild of Mr. Shane Steadman (the man who filed for the original trademark), then this article should be devoted to Decker's product. If ugg boots was generic for a particular type of footwear, then that must be the article's focus. As the latter circumstance holds true, its method of handling must be invoked.

If an American Indian went to Australia and made a Tipi brand tent and developed a trademark of it that came to be recognized throughout much of the world, it would not change the fact that our tipi article would address the generic form tipi. What's more, handling it as such should not be construed as favoring any small companies that use 'tipi' as an adjective in describing their product (or their company name).

Phoenix, I'm sorry I can't support you on this one. You've provided clear evidence to support your argument and I respect that. I'm also fairly certain I understand the perspective you're looking at it from, as I took great pains to walk both sides of the fence in assessing this. But the reality is, as an encyclopedia, our first priority is to general knowledge information and 'ugg boots' are (and were) a thing first. All the name brands and companies that make ugg boots are secondary - tertiary, even - in our coverage. In the long run, it would be intellectually irresponsible to address the matter any other way.
But my opinion holds no more weight than any other objective editor, so I encourage you to pursue more input on the matter and wish you the best of luck. I'm going to move on from this subject as it's starting to make me want to gouge my eyes out ;-), if anyone needs me for anything (ie. some earthshattering new evidence comes to light or a briefer summary of my opinion is required for arbitration), just shoot me a line.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that excellent review. My only concern in this is that Wikipedia not be used for promotion: remove all fluff that may promote Australian interests, and remove all fluff that may promote American interests. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OT diversion

Good morning, Gnangarra. You still haven't produced any proof that I ever tried, ... to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit ... I have asked for proof of your accusation since August 12. I still look forward to any proof you may offer to support this accusation, or a retraction and apology. Please indicate where I have made such an outrageous claim, Gnangarra. Anywhere. In mainspace or on this Talk page. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If an Ugg boot is made of sheep skin then it isnt counterfeit, that is what this article is about if the article was to be bias towards Australia then a counterfeit Ugg boot would be ones made in China by multinational companies. What P&W is saying is that a counterfeit UGG boot is one that isnt made by Deckers, to define the Australian made boots in the Australian market as counterfeit violates WP:NPOV any coverage of conterfeit boots should be about the materials only in this article with Decker specific issues in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article my quote in full its actually self explanatory the counterfeit section at the time of my comment was defining a counterfeit boot as being one that wasnt made by deckers, there is nothing to retract. Oh while your at it your legal threat at WP:RFPP hasnt been withdrawn either. Gnan garra 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any legal threat at WP:RFPP. I merely observed the fact that Deckers had previously taken court action to protect its trademark. Diff:[27] "The counterfeit section at the time of [your] comment" is here and does not "define a counterfeit boot as being one that wasnt made by deckers." It defines a counterfeit UGG (all capital letters) boot, in Scotland and the United States, as being one that wasn't made by Deckers. It's clearly limited to the brand name itself and the geographic area of Scotland and the United States. Specifically, not Australia; just the United States and Scotland. Again, "The counterfeit section at the time of [your] comment" is here. It says absolutely nothing about "Australian made boots in the Australian market." Please review that version of the article, and then retract your accusations and apologize. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

archiving old discussions

Please stop doing manual archives, large removal of text is red flag indicator of vandalism, MiszaBot I has been set up do the archiving when discussions have become old, which is 21 days after last comment. If editors wants to close a discussion then please use {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. Gnan garra 02:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

similar challenge

as tagged in the article -- This is WP:OR quoting the dutch court document(source) makes no comparison between the two the cases so calling it similar is original research as such it needs an independent source or the comparison needs to be removed. Gnan garra 06:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trademarks and counterfeits

Many companies fight over branding, counterfeiting, and trademarks several times every year, and a brief outline of these issues is all that is of encyclopedic relevance in this article. I can live with the current statement that Deckers owns the trademark UGG Australia (mainly because it's somewhat interesting that a company from one country owns a trademark identifying another country), however the keepandshare.com reference obviously fails WP:IRS, and the use of a primary source for such a blanket statement is unacceptable (a secondary source is needed because, for example, the legal situation could easily have changed within a month). Most of Ugg boots#Trademark dispute needs severe pruning, for example, a "similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch court" is pure WP:OR (who says it was similar? where is the secondary source?). Even if all the material were suitably sourced, the descriptions are WP:UNDUE here: we all understand that counterfeits of watches, medicines, handbags, running shoes, and much more, are available for purchase in every village and city of the world – if this material is inherently encyclopedic, put it in its own article, but its inclusion here puts an undue slant on this article. Similarly, Ugg boots#Counterfeit products needs pruning: the only justification for this material is to establish some form of branding for a manufacturer, that is, to use Wikipedia to promote a product. Text like "Neil Coltart of the Glasgow City Council said..." is embarrassing, but the whole section is trite nonsense: it's very likely that each of us reading this live within half an hour of markets where vast numbers of counterfeit goods are sold (and of course it's all online); Rolex#Counterfeits deals with this in a dozen words. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how keepandshare.com fails WP:IRS in this instance, where the documents are clearly scans of original court documents. I realize that secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are acceptable under several circumstances. A "similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch court" — I'd suggest replacing "a similar challenge" with "another 'generic term' challenge," which satisfies WP:OR. Rolex#Counterfeits, and other sections like it in similar brand name articles, could stand to be expanded considerably. Now that your sourcing and WP:OR challenges have been addressed, what's left is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The bedrock principle of WP:N only addresses the existence of articles. It does not address the notability of content. "Justification for this material" in this particular article is that the generic term "ugg boot" is being used by the counterfeiting manufacturers as a defense. A substantial amount of space, including a quote from someone (not a judge) who heard the case, is devoted to the Australian case where the generic term triumphed, and the trademark was stricken from the registry. Equivalent space, including quotes from the judges who heard the cases, should be devoted to each of the other cases where the generic term failed, and the trademark triumphed. Remember WP:WEIGHT: weight must be apportioned based on the amount of representation in reliable sources, and is reflected in everything from placement, to amount of space. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a long and most interesting article by Nicholas Schmidle about shoe counterfeiting in today's IHT. The title is "Inside a factory that makes counterfeit shoes"; on the NYT website, it's "Inside the Knockoff-Tennis-Shoe Factory". Uggs aren't mentioned, and indeed non-sports shoes in general aren't mentioned. (It may be that an area of China other than the one Schmidle visited specializes in branded furry boots and the like.) Anyway, as I read it, the only thing that surprises me about the UGG Australia counterfeiting business is that the counterfeits are (if the source is to be believed) of such poor quality. True, Schmidle says nothing, or next to nothing, about actual quality of the counterfeit products (matters affecting comfort, durability, etc), but he does say that a high percentage is of excellent apparent quality. (Apparently the aroma of the glue is a giveaway, or perhaps the only giveaway.) So the counterfeiting of branded shoes is a big business, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia; but the counterfeiting of the "UGG Australia" brand is not obviously remarkable. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the distinction between "the counterfeiting of branded shoes" and "the counterfeiting of the 'UGG Australia' brand" from an encyclopedic perspective, since the latter is an illustrative, educational, and therefore useful example of the former. Good work finding that Schmidle article, since it is also illustrative and I believe it can be used here. ("Should" may be another matter.) But again, notability (or "remarkability") really isn't an issue since WP:N addresses the existence of articles, not their content. Since we've agreed that the Ugg boots article should exist, and should discuss the generic term, the bedrock principle that must guide us is WP:NPOV and, in this case, the WP:WEIGHT section therein. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When you counterfeit the Ugg Australia brand -- you copy the cut, the stitching, the label, the logo using like materials or near like substitues such that the average punter cant distinguish between them. When you counterfeit ugg boots(generic) its about using synethised materials(faux sheepskins) rather than actual sheepskins. Gnan garra 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. That's why the material from the Glasgow Evening Times needs to be in here, Gnangarra. Those were made with UGG boots (brand name) labels, cut, stitching and trade dress; but they were also made out of fake fur, so they were counterfeit ugg boots (generic term). After all that fussing and fighting, once the facts become clear it turns out that we're in complete agreement. The first pint of Foster's Lager is on me, mate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Eww, I'd rather have a Budweiser :) Gnan garra 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how keepandshare.com fails WP:IRS: Isn't that a site where anyone can upload anything, and there is no review? Sure, it is likely that the documents are genuine, but references simply cannot rely on such easily-alterable material. What might be acceptable would be to have a reference to a genuinely reliable source (a secondary source), and include in the reference a link to the scanned documents as a reader convenience, but not as the actual source. I could raise this at WP:RSN if you want other views, but it's an obvious case of failing WP:IRS. The keepandshare document is interesting in another sense because it demonstrates that someone has a strong COI regarding this article (presumably an editor close to Deckers uploaded the document). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just using the sources I found here, John. These keepandshare.com links were already here when I started editing the article. Do you really think they're forgeries? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P&W there have been a quiet a few self confessed Decker respresentatives editing this article most only confess after the have been outed. With the documents there's no oversight to ensure that they are genuine, for the purpose of verifiability we require editorial oversight of sources(secondary sources) or at least sources where authenticity is clear(primary source). Third party sites like this, or youtube can be linked to but cautiosly in an el section, view the Youtube video here or view the document at keepandshare.com which presents the information to reader to make their own decision on authenticity with out compormising our verfiability requirements. Gnan garra 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

During the next 3-4 days, I'm not going to have a lot of time to look up alternate sourcing. If you'd like, we can tag those few portions of the article with {{cn}} until I find new sourcing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Dutch decision at the primary source.[28] Here's a follow-up decision by the same court in September 2009 (reported by a different court reporting agency), fixing the amount of damages and legal fees to be paid by La Cheapa at €13.695.70 [29] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of the section on counterfeiting altogether? It doesn't fit in with the rest of the article which is about generic Australian Ugg Boots. Sure, mention that there's a trademark dispute but this greater detail about counterfeiting belongs on a page about Deckers or UGG AUSTRALIA brand boots, not here. At the moment this section reads like a sign posted by Deckers saying "Hey, in case you didn't know we think we own this generic product. Watch out for those FAKE boots from China! It would be no different if we had a big section on pirate CDs from Penang in the "Compact Disc" entry.70.189.214.56 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, explained a bit above. — e. ripley\^talk 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Decker's trademarked the brandname UGG and it's been branded in many different countries. They do own this product and a court in the California has made that very clear. Also if you look at the growth of Deckers Outdoor you will see that their product is more than just successful. UGG is a brand that all recognize and covet. Watch a group of high school girls walk down the street in any city and you will see several pair of UGG boots. They wait patiently for this brand under the Christmas tree and would be disapointed if it was a fake, a Kirkland sheep skin boot or an Emu. They know that UGG is the best and not a generic term, but a brand of boot that everyone wants. (Hapamama (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Likewise, suggest counterfeit section be removed. I'm not going to reiterate my reasoning because I've already done it twice. The only new reason would be that since Klownsta's advice in the RFC it is clearer that the focus of the article should be on the generic ugg boot, not a particular brand of ugg boot, despite the naming similarity. Thus, a counterfeit section about the brand, Ugg Australia, doesn't belong here, but rather on the article about Ugg Australia. Donama (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A question for Wikidemon

You added this phrase to the end of the second paragraph as it stands right now: as to whether the mark is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection. Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm quite tired right now so perhaps I'm just being dense, but what are you trying to convey with this? It's just not reading right to me, and I'm having trouble deciphering your meaning, but maybe it's just me. — e. ripley\^talk 02:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, upon reading again I think I've answered my own question -- I think the way it's structured now separates the thoughts way too much so I'm going to preserve that basic wording but re-connect the disjointed thought so it's not so fractured. — e. ripley\^talk 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for answering your own question. There was an implied "..and therefore..." in there. By most countries' trademark laws, generic terms for a thing cannot be considered trademarks for the thing. Trademarks can become genericized over time, and vice-versa, but a term for something cannot be both generic and a trademark at the same time. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to lede trademark paragraph

I just made this edit,[30] and wish to explain some of the changes:

"significant" is unnecessary to describe a trademark dispute - it's a judgment as to importance that's not really in the sources. The reader can decide for themselves how significant this is, but the facts speak for themselves, and if it weren't significant we wouldn't have it in the lede, right?
"dispute over the trademark status" changed to "trademark dispute". The dispute is in part over whether the mark is generic, and therefore subject to trademark. The word "status" refers to this, but isn't precise enough to communicate it to the reader, so it ends up causing more confusion than it solves. The broader term "trademark dispute" is more widely understood, and the rest of the sentence clarifies what the dispute is about.
"trademarked as UGG®..." changed to "under the UGG mark...". The term "trademarked" is a slightly colloquial term for the successfulfiling of a trademark registration with a national trademark registry, for example the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, the filing does not create the trademark, it merely registers it, affording the trademark owner additional rights. The relevant point is not that Deckers happened to file a bunch of registrations, but that it holds a bunch of trademarks. However, that doesn't get to the heart of the dispute, which is whether the company actually owns trademarks... To state the terms of the dispute without coming down on one side or another, we simply say that the company markets the boots under that mark. We can say later that courts in most countries have agreed with Deckers. In a similar vein, Wikipedia like most third parties rarely usess the circle-R designation when referring to a trademark - that's a claim that the holder may choose to attach to put others on notice that the company holds a registration. Third parties generally just use the mark - and capitalizing each word of a mark is a convention to designate one is referring to the mark itself.

I'm not entirely sure this belongs in the lede in this particular article, because it's more of an issue for the company/brand than for the generic term. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't quibble about "successfully",[31] and I don't see the claim as promotional. However, 46X growth in 13 years does not seem unusual for fashion brands as they first reach international recognition. Some go from 0 to 100 million in 2-3 years. Also, "successful" is kind of implied because if it didn't have lots of sales it wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't talk about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As we have no figures for other companies that make the boots, the growth could be more than 46x times or it could be just that deckers legal actions in closing down other companies saw their existing markets shift across to them. Gnan garra 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to see some sales figures for Australian manufacturers, especially if they could show "before and after" effects of Deckers' legal actions. I think including those in the article would be very informative. But my research over the past four weeks tells me this:

From World War I until 1971, Aussie manufacturers focused entirely on the Aussie market, and experienced the worldwide Great Depression and the painfully slow growth found in one limited market. By 1971, total sales in Australia were probably a few million a year. This is what the first half of the article is all about.
In 1971, an enterprising Aussie surfer found and began to develop an enormous new market in the United States, and was clever enough to trademark the word "UGG" in 25 countries, while the other Aussie manufacturers continued to focus on the small Australian market.
By 1995, the enterprising Aussie surfer was selling US$14.5 million a year and sold his company, and all its trademarks, to the American company Deckers for a very prosperous amount. Meanwhile, the other Aussie manufacturers continued to focus on the small Australian market, and continued to sell a few million dollars' worth of boots each year.
The opportunistic Deckers invested $8 million in marketing its new acquisition in North America, Europe and the Far East. Deckers got very, very lucky as well, with unsolicited celebrity endorsements and product placement in films and TV shows. UGG joined the ranks of Jimmy Choo, Gucci, Chanel, Prada, Ralph Lauren and other luxury designer brands. Fashion-conscious purchasers recognized UGG as a designer brand, and perceived other brands as knockoffs. Deckers' sales of UGG boots grew "exponentially."
Australian manufacturers, seeing an American company growing filthy rich on the back of an Australian cultural icon, grew furious. They attempted to piggyback on Deckers' success in various ways, by exploiting the enormous worldwide market that Deckers had invested the money to develop. This came in the form of websites (it's called the "World Wide Web" for a reason), traditional shipping and distribution through bricks-and-mortar storefronts, and in at least one case (La Cheapa in the Netherlands), an Australian manufacturer produced counterfeit Deckers products. They also started cranking out "Save Our Uggs" propaganda films, which have all been dutifully linked for a long time in our "External links" section.
Deckers has jealously and very successfully fought back. Arbitration decisions have universally awarded Internet domain names containing the word "ugg" to Deckers. Trademark infringement lawsuits, cease and desist letters, and every other arrow in a law firm's quiver has been fired at these Aussie manufacturers. In every courtroom in the world except Australia's, they have hit the mark effectively and the Aussies have been forced to withdraw, or market their product as "sheepskin boots" with much less success.
But in the tiny Australian market, Aussie manufacturers continue to dominate, and continue to be able to market their products as "ugg boots," because the tiny David defeated the powerful Goliath in Australian trademark court.

It seems to me that the article should, and does, reflect these facts. Perhaps what you really want is a separate article about Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, from which any mention of Deckers (except as the chump that lost the Australian trademark case) can be safely evicted. But in an article about Ugg boots, meaning "Ugg boots in the entire world," Deckers is unavoidable. It is the proverbial elephant in the room. It's many times larger than all other manufacturers combined, and attempting to evict it from this article (except as the chump that lost the Australian trademark case) is completely ridiculous, and transparently biased. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, P&W, I think that anyone who has followed this page realizes that you are very impressed by how much money Deckers has made, and how "UGG Australia" is a "luxury designer brand" etc etc. Let's all agree that "La Cheapa" was an awful outfit that did an awful thing, and that slebs wear UGGs, and that people who concern themselves about slebs and lavish advertising would never buy uggs that didn't say "UGG", and that Deckers has a god-given right to be loaded with money and to spend a fair amount of it on litigation. But you add Fashion-conscious purchasers recognized UGG as a designer brand, and perceived other brands as knockoffs. It's my impression from some websurfing a little time back that buyers (fashion conscious or not, I don't know) recognized UGG as one brand and EMU as another. (UGG may be very much bigger than EMU, and perhaps a "designer brand" is not the same as a "brand".) -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Achieving 4,600% sales growth in 13 years would be a dream come true for every 24-year-old MBA graduate. It isn't just notable; it's phenomenal "Retire at 40" stuff. Regarding "perceived other brands as knockoffs," Googling the words "knockoff UGG" (without the quotation marks) produces a lot of sources; I've tried to list some of them here in order of reliability, most reliable sources first.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Some of the latter ones are online forums and not what we'd consider reliable enough to cite in the article mainspace. But the rest seem reliable enough. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, none of those are reliable sources - the closest is lovetoknow.com, (which might be reliable, but makes some fundamental errors). The rest are blogs, comments, online stores or forums. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Main:UGG Australia

While its difficult to give a fair position in the article to direct readers across to the brand article I think its inappropriate(WP:NPOV) to have the link as main in the Trademark dispute section as main is used to direct editor to article that is about that section UGG Australia isnt the article about the trade mark dispute. A more neutral link would be a link from the lead at ...countries under the "UGG" mark, ... or even a hat note. Gnan garra 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the opinion of creating a disambiguation line which would read as follows:

This is an article about a style of boots in Australia and New Zealand, for the UGG brand of footwear, clothing and accessories see UGG (Brand). [or alternatively, Deckers Outdoor]--Factchk (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that. I think the best place is to put the link at the very top, before the lede, using the "about" template, something like this:

When the dust settles I think the trademark section in this article should be greatly shortened, and the long version should be in the company article. The trademark section could have a link that looks like:

- Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly added the hatnote. WD, I disagree with you regarding "greatly shorten[ing]" the trademark dispute section, since this article is about the generic term, and the generic term was used as a defense in those disputes. Other than that, I think we're on the same page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

People see Ugg boots as a brand, not just a style of footwear

I don't know much about Ugg boots, or the situation in Australia, but what I do know is that their worldwide popularity is based on the brand more than the boots. As with most items of clothing, most people (in the UK at least) are particularly keen to only have "genuine" Ugg boots and regard them as a designer item. To say that Ugg boots are just a style of boot and not a brand or designer seems wrong to me.... just because Australia have decided the company can't have a trademark, everywhere else hasn't - and Australia does not get to dictate to the world. To the US, UK, and over 20 other countries, this is a clothes designer, a trademarked brand. Australia is in the extreme minority here and to say that people commonly accept Ugg boots as just a style of boots is misleading and wrong. To my knowledge, Ugg boots' worldwide popularity is attached to the brand/designer. In short, I think this article needs to place more an emphasis on the worldwide view, rather than that of just Australia. Cheers IainUK talk 11:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right wrongs, or to stick up for exploited brandnames. Of course, if there is any material which unduly promotes an Australian product, remove it immediately. See WP:MOSTM to verify that we use terms like "Realtor", not "REALTOR®" (and ™ and ® symbols are generally not used). WP:NOTADVERTISING points out that we do not promote companies. Accordingly, an article would generally not spend much time enthusing about how customers love their UGG brand and do not want cheap substitutes. Certainly, if there is an encyclopedic purpose (and reliable sources), something along those lines can be mentioned briefly. However, the better plan would be to remove any bias towards competitors that can be identified. Or, if you can find sufficient sources, write a new article on how consumers are motivated towards buying brand name products (that would have encyclopedic value). Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As this boot primarily is considered generic in Australia and New Zealand, and as this article is about the boot style generically, naturally it's going to use lots of sources from Australia and New Zealand. I also don't see anywhere in the article that asserts that people worldwide commonly accept ugg boots as just a style of boots as opposed to recognizing brand names. I doubt anybody could prove that definitively anyway. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your objections are. — e. ripley\^talk 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If only there was a survey which asked people the simple question, Are Ugg boots a) a style of footwear, or b) a brand of footwear... that would solve this matter once and for all! And I'm sure I know what the overwhelming response would be (in the UK at least). Again, Wikipedia is a worldwide website, not an Australia website, and in all but one of the countries where Ugg boots are popular, the term is a trademarked brand not a style. I do still think there should be a paragraph on how Australia is unique in that it uses this word for a style rather than a brand, but it should be a paragraph at the end of the article. And I write from a WP:NPOV. Nobody involved in the production of any type of Ugg boots or similar should be editing this article. Cheers IainUK talk 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is about the generic boot style. You can always edit at UGG Australia or some other Deckers article if you want to expand the content about Deckers-branded products. Or are you suggesting there simply shouldn't be an article about the generic boot style? If so you should nominate this article for deletion, although I doubt that'll go anywhere. Otherwise, what are the changes you're wanting here? — e. ripley\^talk 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't claim ownership of this article as "this article is about the generic boot style". This article is called Ugg boots and that is what I am discussing. This article is what comes up when people from the UK, US, and every country in the world, type in "Ugg boots" into Wikipedia. How can you say in an encyclopaedic article that Ugg boots are just a style of footwear, when the reality is that in most of the countries where they exist they are a trademarked product?? It is misleading and incorrect and only applicable to one country. IainUK talk 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While I respect that in many parts of the world "ugg boots" are seen as a particular brand of shoe belonging to a particular manufacturer, Wikipedia's role is primarily to inform based on reliable sources. Historically ugg boots are a style of footwear that emerged in Australia and New Zealand, and have cultural significance in those countries. One manufacturer is now best identified with that style outside of those two countries, due both to their extensive promotion of their brand and their aggressive protection of their trademark, and thus the article rightly highlights that manufacturer more than any other. However, it would be remiss of us to overly focus on that brand, and not inform readers of the wider history. - Bilby (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole world, besides Australia and New Zealand, sees UGG as a brand. They do not see it as any type of generic sheep skin boot. When you go into an UGG store you can buy sneakers, sandals and a pair of sheepskin boots. On the webpage, Daily Market, you can see just how well this brand is doing with a "better than expected" quarter! {http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2010/08/05/momentum-stock-deckers-outdoor-corp/}! Not many brands can say this in this economic down turn!! (Hapamama (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

The whole world sees "UGG", so capitalized, as a brand (or a perversely capitalized generic). When you go into an Apple store you can buy Ipods, Iphones, computers, etc; rarely can you buy apples. Deckers is making loads of money and I'm terribly impressed by this. (Apple is making loads of money too.) Now, how does the world see "ugg", so uncapitalized? I don't claim to know. I imagine that Deckers hopes that the world sees it as a brand with the needed capitalization missing. As for me, outside Australia, I'd heard of uggs long before I'd heard of any brand of uggs. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We could figure that out fairly easily by checking the reliable sources worldwide to see how they use the term. If they use it capitalized, in a way that assumes without explaining that they're talking about the company, that's a pretty good sign. But even granting Hapamama's point that the word evokes the brand for most people, we would still likely use the lower-case generic term to refer to the generic product, and the capitalized term, possibly with a parenthetical "brand" or "company" descriptor, to refer to a particular branded kind. That's the logical way to do things. It's a pretty common experience on Wikipedia to type in a company name and find an article about a fairly obscure term that the company took its name from. I can find very few examples of local generic words that became international trademarks, but they are probably out there. It's not uncommon for a descriptive word (e.g. "digital", "united", "ruffles", "windows") to become a trademark in its own territory, or for a common word ("fiat", "prudential", "time", "life", "caterpillar") to become a trademark for a different kind of thing. And of course a trademark can become genericized. Wikipedia's handling of these is all over the map. Sometimes the term is used for the article about the common word, sometimes the company, and sometimes a disambiguation page. Boomerang is a trademark for all kinds of things, but I think most people still think of the object, not the company. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bilby here. The generic item has to go somewhere doesn't it? It's clearly wrong to abandon this article to Deckers and go off and make an "Australian style sheepskin boots" article elsewhere because a generic term already exists. It's not the boots' fault that the term has come to be recognised in a significant part of the world as brand. The article points this out - surely that's enough? Let's imagine Stouffers in the US trademarks the term "Bangers and Mash" and as a result this term becomes recognised as a brand name by much of the world. It doesn't seem right to me that the brand would then take over the generic entry filled with big sections about how there's concern for "fake" plates of Bangers and Mash served up in British pubs. The only reason anyone cares about adding all these disclaimers into the generic article at all is, I suspect, because the object in question is a fashion accessory. Again - there HAS to be a spot for the generic product. The UGG Trademark does not extinguish this style of boots as a generic object and we don't want to have to move this to an "Australian Sheepskin Boots" entry any more than we want to create an entry for "Sausages served with mashed pototo and gravy"70.189.214.56 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, IP 70, there's already an enormous "spot for the generic product" in the entire first half of this article. WP:WEIGHT addresses not only the amount of space, but positioning in the article; and the generic term is discussed first. The term "ugg boots" does not describe only the Australian manufacturers' boots, but all double-face sheepskin boots made woerldwide, including Deckers. So Deckers must be given appropriate weight in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Very strongly agree with P&W. There has been a very strong Aussie emphasis in this article from the onset. In spite of evidence and testimonials that Ugg is not generic globally. I presented information supporting that notion months ago and was shouted down. I think we can accommodate everyone here but the UGG(R) brand has to be given its due.--Factchk (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Ownership issues aside, it is normally the case that when there is a company or brand that that has the same name as a generic term or common word, the article that sits on the term is the one about the generic or common use. At the top of the article there is an "other uses" or a link to a disambiguation page. The company article is typically named "word (company)", "word ([product] manufacturer)", "word (brand)", etc. That's usually the case as a matter of organizing things logically, even in cases such as this when the brand name has a lot more prominence than the underlying word. However, if there are many different usages, or the brand name predominates, sometimes that's flipped, or a disambiguation page is used. In this case it makes the most sense to use "Ugg boots" as the article about the regional generic term, and use "Ugg (footware brand)" or something similar for the article about the branded merchandise. That's pretty simple. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear what the consensus is here and I am grateful that my points have been considered. Cheers IainUK talk 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that P&W has reinstated a sentence in the lead clarifying the difference between the way the UGG term is used in Australia and New Zealand as compared to the U.S. and the rest of the world where UGG is a brand for a footwear, clothing, handbags and accessories product line, of which sheepskin boots are only one part. It is important that this article recognize the different meanings to avoid causing confusion.--Factchk (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By "the UGG term" do you mean "the term 'ugg'"? I mean, I think we can agree that "sandal" has (so far!) gone untrademarked. I don't put on my "SANDAL shoes"; I put on my sandals. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)