Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dispute

I would like to dispute the following

"however current revisionist etymology claims that the name comes from the way it "hugs" the foot and leg"

This is a fabrication that was made up by Robert Brodie-Hall who manufactures for Koolaburra. I know this first hand as Mr. Brodie-Hall told me this back in 2002 when I first began doing business with them. Essentially, Koolaburra's founder, Clifford Severn S.G. did not like the "Ugly" nick name and so he asked Mr. Brodie-Hall to come up with a better story. The cockneys dropping their "h" was his idea and Koolaburra attached this to their literature until they settled their law suite with Deckers and withdrew this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.229.250 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Unfortunately, first hand information is nearly worthless on Wikipedia because it can't be checked out. We could say "however Koolaburra claimed that the name comes from the way it "hugs" the foot and leg." What do you think? –Shoaler (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, the way it appears now is accurate:

"however the American importer Koolaburra introduced the idea that the name comes from the way it "hugs" the foot and leg." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.229.250 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another topic

UGG is now an incontestable trademark in the USA and many other countries.

This style of boot is now being called "Sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots" by all manufactures that are marketing in the USA which happens to purchase over 300 million dollars of this product each year. This is subtstancial.

Please add a section for this very imporant name of boot. Additionally, if a boot of this style is using Australian sheepskin, it is then an "Australian sheepskin boot" regardless of where it may be made.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.229.250 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is incontestable. Especially if the original evidence in support of the trademark being registered was false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybecom (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And also if the name is found to be or to have become generic - Aspirin for example has become a generic name - Staphylococcus 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "incontestible" is a legal term for trademarks in the US meaning that the mark has been registered for 5 years. So the UGG registration in the states in indeed "incontestible." Also, courts in the US have repeatedly considered the evidence of Australian "genericness" and ruled the US UGG registration to be valid. Trademarks are national, not international. What matters is the how consumers in one country react to the term, not consumers in another. Regardless of what Australians may think "ugg" means, consumers in the US clearly recognize UGG as a brand name with the result that the work is a trademark in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkyqb (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ontario universities

they really really are popular, i just found this wikipage. and i thought it was universal, but it is winter right now and probably 90% + of females wear them. i can't explain this trend, but i wish i could —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.207.240 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Slang for ugly

Article claims that the word "ug" is Aust slang for ugly. I dispute this. Not only have I never heard of it before, I can assure you that in Aust the term "ug" means a type of boot. Funny that. Asa01 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why were the boots called "ug" in the first place? Probably because after wearing them for a few years in the dust and mud and roo-shit, they can look rather ugly. –Shoaler (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the name "ug" might have been derived from "ugly" by the people who made the boot and coined the name "ug". I've just never heard that the word "ug" is slang for ugly in Aust. It might be where the name derived from, but did the word "ug" exist to mean "ugly" outside the name of the boots? As it stands the article suggests that Aussies at one time went around saying "what an ug design", "what an ug old witch", "that's an ug accident", something I have never heard of. BTW that linked-to article is sketchy on this too. Asa01 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense to me. Maybe you'd want to check through Aust dictionaries and such which tell when words were first used and see if "ug" ever meant anything besides "ugly boot". And then fix the article so it's correct. –Shoaler (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary at work -which is full of Aust terms- mentions nothing about ug meaning ugly. It only says the ug is the name of a type of boot, along with ugh boot. Asa01 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ug was in use by a Wesern Australian manufacturer and had been in Perth stores since I was a kid in the 1960's. Their labels called it Ug for Ugly, but they changed it to "Ugh as in cave man" later when someone trademarked it. petedavo 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it probably bears mentioning that while these are somewhat trendy in the US, in Australia they are heavily associated with bogans and not something you'd be very likely to wear if you were going out somewhere70.180.211.21 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in the 70's and 80's in Tasmania - the Ugg Boot capital of Australia - and they were universally associated wih bogans. The idea of someone surfing in ugg boots is about as credible as someone spacewalking in Levi's. --Braka (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stupid American Corporation

Let me get this straight...some greedy company in the US decides to own a trademark on something that is a generic term in a faraway land and uses illogical laws to stop all others using it? Can McDonalds now trademark the term "Burger" and sue Burger King for using it? This whole thing came out of plain old embarrassing lack of knowledge about another culture and if an Australian company bought a generic piece of American culture and did the same legal bullying...im sure the US would go to war to defend it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arwengoenitz (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do you really have to generalize this rant to ALL Americans when you're obviously just pissed off about corportions? Also, is there is a suggestion here to improve the article? Save your ranting for when you have some change to suggest. And the trademarking of Ugg did not come from a "plain old embarrassing lack of knowledge," it came from a plain old desire to make shitloads of money, a desire which drives all corporations regardless of their country of charter.--Hraefen 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is lack of knowledge that allowed this to happen. Had they known that Ugg Boot was a generic descriptor not a trademarkable brand name then they would not have attempted and been given the name. Didnt the company understand why noone had trademarked the name before them? Becasue...YOU CANT OWN A DESCRIPTION? Its the fault of both the company and the regulatory authoritiy that gave the okay to this foolishness. I want to see that reflected in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arwengoenitz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(i) Please sign your comments. This is very easy: simply hit the twiddle key ("~") four times in a row. (ii) Yes, American commercial law is remarkable for the ignorance and laziness with which it is or isn't implemented. I agree. But my point of view on this is no more "encyclopedic" than yours, which is why you should delete mine from the article should you see it there, and why I'll delete yours from the article. An article about ugg boots is for the facts about ugg boots, and perhaps also for facts about the name of ugg boots. That's all. If you'd like to write a rant about some miscarriage of justice related to ugg boots, feel free to do so, elsewhere. (Incidentally, if you really think, as I do, that "ugg boot" is a generic descriptor, you may wish to avoid capitalization.) -- Hoary 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny picture

The first picture on the Ugg boots article is funny because I thought ugg boots are worn or made for women, but the ugg boots in the picture seem to be worn by a man. --141.213.196.250 08:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugg boots have historically been worn by both men and women. Right now, in the US, they're more fashionable for women than men, but most vendors have uggs for both men and women. –Shoaler (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugg boots are infact both worn by women and men. You need a change for that picture, though. Closeup on hairy legs are a nono 218.101.69.175 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMack (talk • contribs)

hyeee.

ugg boots are beeeautimouse. how could anyone say they're ugly ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.149.198 (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Are you kidding? They're horrid, lumpy pieces of crap that make me cringe. Then again, most of what stupid 13 year old girls like makes me cringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.53 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Trademark Issues

Does anyone know of a good reason that this section was severly cut (edit 02:11, 29 December 2006 71.225.154.78)? I would have thought this section was still pertinent, as it covers the entire trademark battle from Decker's purchasing of UGG as a trademark, its effect on the Australian manufacturers, up to the Jan 2006 decisions of the Australian Trademarks Registry. Although it would have been better if it referred to Koolaburra's US court battle as well. I also thought it should still mention how in Australia they are not seen as fashionable, mostly worn as "something comfortable around the house". Is there any reason these cannot be re-inserted? D f cornish 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban Myth?

Many years ago the first time I heard the term "Ugg" was from a California native describiing something extremely cute. Long before Ugg boots were heard of. Curious, I asked why she said this. Come to find out it was a rather common slang term derived back from the old 1960's Peanuts cartoon's when Cahrlie Brown would always exclaim "UGH!!" This has become a term of endearmeant to many and became part of the California Slanguage as many others. I have talked to many others and all have claimed this is the origin of the name brand of Ugg Boot. " Ugg" meaning so darn cute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.13.114 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to imply that the Australians named this style after a US term, which strikes me as unlikely. Well, if "ugg" (meaning either "cute" or "boot") is a US word, it should appear in volume 5 of Dictionary of American Regional English, which I expect will be out fairly soon. -- Hoary 15:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed advertising link - Bonsai - nothing to do with UGG boots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.102.126 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Nz/Aussie arguement.

I hate to bring up the whole Nz invented it, No Australia invented it argument but i came across this article and i was until reading it under the impression that these boots were of NZ creation. By saying this i'm sure i will elicite the usual responce of bloody kiwi trying to claim another aussie item, etc, and i'm not trying to claim that, but there does not seem to be any referenced claim that sheepskin boots of the ugg variety are aussie, and at least one of your external links claims otherwise. i will keep looking until i can find some more reliable claim but at this point the oldest ugg boot claim seems to come form the website saying they originated in NZ. the ones claiming it as an aussie invention seem to generally say about 1930's but the kiwi claim is dating into the 1800's. Worth investigating anyway. Cheers. 203.97.237.98 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1800s! So they were invented about 200 years ago? Just kidding. Grant | Talk 06:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what the link which this page has on it says. Not me. 203.97.237.98 23:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

It seems to me that "ugg boots", at least in the sense that the word is used in Australasia, is interchangeable with "sheepskin boots", which re-directs to this article. Since sheepskin boots are much older than the name, "ugg boots" — they are possibly even pre-historic — I think the direction of the redirect should be reversed and this article should be moved to sheepskin boots. The pretentiously-named Ugg Australia [sic] can remain a redirect to Deckers Outdoor Corporation, because it's a proper name. Grant | Talk 06:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article is written purely from an Australian perspective - and seems to waste a lot of its space towards beating up on Deckers with inaccurate statements. I hope you will appreciate that people in America and Europe have a completely different perception of UGG - they know it only as a brand name. The trademark dispute in Australia may be interesting and worth noting, but previous versions of this article seem to be too devoted to this story as opposed to what most readers of Wikipedia want to know about - the UGG Brand. There can be no denying that Deckers owns registrations for UGG in the US, Europe and many other countries, and that these registrations are valid.

Also, it's clear that whoever is writing this is somehow related to UGGS-N-RUGS, and is spreading inaccuracies about Deckers with respect to UGGS-N-RUGS. For example, the last version of the article suggests that Deckers registered the uggs-n-rugs.com domain. This is not true. Deckers acquired that in a UDRP action against another Australian that had registered over 30 domains that included UGG and was using them to sell counterfiets. Look it up on the UDRP decision page - Deckers v. Barclay.

Punkyqb - Sept. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkyqb (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Europe and I know ugg boots as a kind of boot. I'm also vaguely aware that one company has managed to trademark "UGG" in some parts of the world. Punkyqb, claims that most readers of Wikipedia want to know about - the UGG Brand. I wonder where the evidence for that is. Perhaps UGG deserves its own article. If it gets one, I don't think it should start UGG is a brand name known world-wide for luxury sheepskin boots. Although the brand was born in America in the late 1970’s (founded Brian Smith, an Australian immigrant), the style of sheepskin boot the UGG brand name is associated with originated in Australia. The UGG brand steadily grew through the 1980’s and garnered a cult-like following in the surfing and skiing markets that valued their unique breathability and overall comfort. The boots felt great on feet after coming out of the water or coming out of ski-boots (my emphases): Wikipedia is not for advertising the a claimed wonderfulness of this or that commercial product. -- Hoary 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Sheepskin

I think this article is wrong. Ugg Boots were made in Cornwall, UK, until the company sold the name to the big Australian company. The original Ugg company is now called "Celtic Sheepskin". Can someone pls elaborate on this in the article? - http://www.celtic-sheepskin.co.uk/cat_boots.asp and http://www.celtic-sheepskin.co.uk/ugg_boots.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.224.129 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but if you look at http://www.celtic-sheepskin.co.uk/cat_ugg_boots.asp it states

"Ugg boot" was a term used in Australia for many years to describe the style of Sheepskin Boots worn by surfers to keep their feet warm after spending hours in the sea. These surfers, many of them travellers, brought the Ugg boot to Newquay in Cornwall in about 1973. Ever since, ugg boots, later renamed to Celt Boots have been made in Newquay.

so it doesn't suggest that they were invented in Cornwall after all. petedavo (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats the deal with "Celtic sheepskin" selling the name "ugg" to Deckers? Did they copyright the name "ugg" in the UK and chose to sell it or were they forced to stop trading under that name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.233.184 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture

There are two "pop culture" things recently referencing the Ugg Boot- first, Dawn/Hikari/female "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl" character is wearing what look like pink uggs, and also there was recently Spirited 2k7 Boots on Gaia Online that are described as something like "Ugg Boots! UGGGGG." Thought this would be neat to add to the article. --Molly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.43.49 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. What would either of these add to readers' understanding of Ugg boots? -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, you don't have to be so nasty about it. It was just a bit of trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.43.49 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret it if you felt slighted in some way, but I just asked a question about your suggested additions.

If they really are "just a bit of trivia", I'd say no. The article should tell the reader about ugg boots. Fan sites for ugg boots can write up the trivia.

Of course, it's easy to name lots of other articles here that list trivia. But I don't think these explain why it should be added to this one; rather, it should be subtracted from them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

they're a hit in europe too. UNSIGNED FIND IN PAGE HISTORY

RPP

This article gets a fair old thrashing from vandals which doesn't help the legit editors in anyway, so I propose that page protection should be applied to the article to limit the visits from non reggistered editors. This is not to prevent any legit debate or edit sparring - just stop the wallys who keep vandalising the article. Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uggs look very good on Jessie Jarvis. She is like them cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.71.134 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Point made Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pete, letting the nitwits vandalize this article (a) keeps them from vandalizing articles on more important phenomena (I don't dare name any, for fear that this might encourage them to go there); and (b) keeps them off the streets. But yes, all of this is a waste of the time of intelligent people like you and (cough) me as well as of the nitwits.

Indeed, they're so busily vandalizing it that I come to revert the removal of anything that isn't blatantly nonsensical. That's how I came to revert the removal of a long passage today. Later today I read it for the first time ever, realized that it said very little and that what little it said of note was better said somewhere else, and completed the work of the vandal-who-wasn't. On the other hand, I recently removed some crapola about a language called "aboriginal" that had survived earlier reversions of vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's annoying when people go in and edit quotes, especially cquotes and take out the citation. Don't they know that a quote is a quote. You can not change what someone has said or wrote. That is the nature of a quote. I bung in CQUOTES because they fit the context, not because I agree with them, and one can't change a quote into something that was never said, otherwise it's no longer a quote! Unfortunately the original Cquotes have so long ago been butchered and in same cases removed altogether that I have taken the approach to aggree with you and leave this article entirely alone.Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just deleted some vandalism Imbored24 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of fashion-awareness

I live in North America and I'm GREATLY disappointed by the fact that such ugly 'foot coverings' (they're not boots, not to mentions shoes) are worn so often. So sad... Good ol' European fashionable girls... miss u Image:Cry-tpvgames.gif Atanasov (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Uggs in mens fashion

Some user keeps reverting any edits I or any other user makes refferring to the fact that men wear UGG boots. This is Encyclopaedic, not POV and UGG boots are Unisex hence why they are made and worn by both sexes. I hope the user refrains from making this article POV and leaves references to both men and women in the article as it is fact. --88.108.61.221 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The user keeps reverting your additions because you are citing a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources for information. The "identified as a fashion trend since the early 2000s, particularly among women" is explicitly sourced in the USA Today article, the info about it being a fashion trend for men however has not been sourced. Per my comment in the edit summary "Find a source that follows WP:RS and then add the info back in." --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 13:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you keep removing any mention of the word male from every part of the article? Someone in the past, could be you for all I know even removed from the start of the title the word male so it read 'Ugg boots are a style of sheepskin boot worn exclusively by women' which is utter nonsense as Men do wear them as well. --88.108.61.221 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference of male and teenagers from the beginning because the USA Today source says female trend. I removed male from the caption because it's a woman wearing the boots, I was there when it was taken. Other than that I haven't removed any other mention of men within the article. I removed that particular information because the source wasn't reliable or the information wasn't in the source. I have no desire to say men don't wear the boots and if you read what was there it wasn't excluding men just saying that it is a trend, particularly among women. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rural occupations

Out of curiosity, how many sheep shearers (or people in other rural occupations) are there in Antarctica? Peridon (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

None. The Antarctic has no aboriginal occupancy. Also - the sheep originates in China so while it is possibly true that they wore some historic equivalent of Ughs, it's unlikely that any other country has a history of them. In the arctic, for instance, the Inuit tend to wear similar shaped boots made of reindeer, fur seal or otter. Not sheep. Roy Scherer (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk • contribs) 05:20, December 2, 2009

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.149.205 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My response:

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

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

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

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

Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognition of Trademark

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

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

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

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

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

You say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts are that UGG is a registered trademark for footwear in the European Community, CTM Reg. No. 1409721. [7]. The Community registration covers 27 countries. CTM Trademark Definition As of April 2010, UGG is a registered trademark in 137 countries and is pending registration in 27 more. [8] --Factchk (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Counterfeiting Section

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

Deckers continually monitors usage of the UGG trademark on the World Wide Web, using legal means to shut down auctions and websites that infringe their trademark.[9] The Australian Trade Marks Office, IP Australia cautions:

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

“The Internet provides easy access to global markets and takes no account of national borders. If you are trading on the Internet you need to understand the laws of the country into which you are selling goods or services. If you place an offer for sale on the Internet in Australia that invites purchase from overseas, this can amount to trading overseas and could leave you vulnerable to legal action and expensive litigation. Likewise an overseas proprietor selling goods in Australia via the Internet may infringe an Australian trade mark.”[10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing in the trademarks section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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