Talk:Ugg boots

Ugg boots in popular culture

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

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

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

Generic in Australia as far back as 1960's

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

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

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

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

registered trademark

The article was recently made to start:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trademark registration in the EU

Among the external links is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are links to the CTM, Wipo(Madrid Protocol), Canada and China registers where interested parties can look up the UGG registrations owned by Deckers. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4]

WP:3O

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

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

Strange. Middlemarch2256 not 10 minutes ago added this request at WP:3O: [5]. — e. ripley\^talk 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am assuming you mean this edit [6]. I have not absorbed the entire edit, but place the link here for easy reference. I will come back to it directly. — e. ripley\^talk 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Rewrite/cleanup of History, Design and Lead sections

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

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

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

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

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

How to tell fake UGG® boots from real ones

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

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

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

The link itself is to a quality web site (albeit provided free by Weebly) and uses the UGG® branding correctly.

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

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

I thought Wikipedia might have had a social responsibility, and was a reference web sites rather than a traditional paper based encyclopaedia, a reference web site that can cover these varied topics more easily and willingly. My mistake!