Talk:UGG (brand)

Fashion Unassessed

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Deletions

The same cocksucker who was deleting style listings on UGG is deleting here, too.

AfD possibility

HJ Mitchell has just tried to delete this article, and Gnangarra has previously tried to merge and redirect this article, without any input from any other editor. UGG brand boots, for the most recent year (2008) I've been able to find figures on, sells US$689 million a year.[1] And I found those figures with a single Google search, in less time than it takes to type this. For such a popular brand, I think it rates its own article, particularly since the parent company, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, has a name that doesn't even resemble the name of the brand.

General Motors has separate articles for its Chevrolet and GMC lines. Chrysler Corporation has separate articles for its Jeep and Dodge lines. Of course feel free to nominate this article for AfD if you choose, but I am confident that you won't succeed, and it will be an enormous waste of time fror everyone, that would be better spent improving articles rather than trying to delete them. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Sorry Bilby, I copied the wrong source for the sales revenue of $14.5 million in 1995. I have now corrected it. Please review and confirm. The last paragraph on the first page of the source reads as follows:

Ugg boots, made of sheepskin, are comfortable in all climates. The boots are sold at Nordstrom, Kinney Shoes and specialty shops across the U.S. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, UGG Holdings had revenue of approximately $14.5 million. Deckers anticipates that the acquisition will be accretive to the balance of 1995 earnings.[2]

Please confirm on this page that the source supports the statement made in the article. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is fine - thanks. It's a press release, but that's fine in this case, as I'm not averse for press releases for certain types of data. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split this?

In the light of IP Australia's 2010 decision, effectively that, within Australia, Luda Productions Pty Ltd is the owner of "UGG AUSTRALIA". In particuar they concluded that, on the balance of evidence, Luda Productions Pty Ltd predate Dockers (then smith)'s use of the term UGG AUSTRALIA in any market by a year.

It leaves me wondering if there should be several pages, one for each of Dockers and Luda, and one for this trademark mess. This page becoming a choice list.

As it is, the opening section is going to need to clearly state that this UGG Australia should not be in any way confused with the other UGG Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagneya (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has that case been settled? As far as I can tell, Luda was successful in September, but there was still room for Deckers to appeal, and the decision only allowed them to proceed to registration, presuming that there was no appeal or court action. My assumption is that Deckers would have appealed, and I don't have any evidence that the registration has been granted. As an aside, it has been split to some extent - the trademark debate is at Ugg boots. - Bilby (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia does not arrange articles to suit the latest developments in a legal struggle between competitors. If necessary (and that's a big if), this article could be renamed, or the lead altered to clarify the worldwide situation. Also, it is not clear that a separate article would satisfy the notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

I think this page needs to be marked with a please lenghten announcement because UGGS are the subject of many controversies so lenghten that section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.128.94 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Trademark Error

Hi all, there is a very important error that needs correcting. In the UGG Australia and Ugg boots articles it states that:

"Due to other business commitments, in 1979 Jenson handed over his share of the company to Smith. Smith later registered Ugg Holdings Inc, trademarked the name "Ugg" in the U.S. and in 1995 purchased Stedman's various trademarks"

According to the documents already on Wikepidia, Smith only every registered "Original UGG Boots UGG Australia" with a rams head logo (see Deckers vs Koolaburra & Deckers Vs Luda), Both of these can easily be found in the above sections. Additionally, I have pointed out this this can be easily confirmed by simply doing a search on the USPTO website, also already on Wikipedia.

Can someone correct this error?--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]