Jump to content

Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Factual inaccuracies and more on trademark in Aust/NZ

There are several errors in the original entry:

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, lined with wool on the inside and with a tanned outer surface. The UGG name and variants thereof have been brands since 1971,[citation needed] and in some countries the Ugg trademark is still upheld, but in Australia and New Zealand the trademark was removed from the registry and ugg is considered a generic name of a style of boot.

The statement that the boots are “lined with wool” is inaccurate. The boots are made with twin-face sheepskin. A piece of twin-face sheepskin has been treated on both the fleece side and the skin side. [1] There is no separate lining.

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

The statement "in Australia and New Zealand the trademark was removed from the registry” is incorrect. UGG AUSTRALIA & Design is a registered trade mark in both Australia and New Zealand. Australia Reg. No. 785466 [2], New Zealand Reg. No. 305032 [3]. In Ref. 1 [4] an Australian registration for UGH-BOOTS was removed from the registry for non-use, but Deckers’ UGG AUSTRALIA registration was upheld by the Australian Trademark Office. [5]

Calling on the other editors who've dealt with this issue already to check these links. Donama (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue is about the use of "UGH-BOOT" as a registered trademark. As far as I can tell, the January 2006 decision on UGH-BOOT found against Deckers, removing the term UGH-BOOT from the registry. The document linked to above is a separate case questioning the use of UGG AUSTRALIA as a trademark with the accompanying logo. This was found for Deckers. The former allowed the use of the term "Ugg boots" in Australia by anyone, while the latter allowed Deckers to continue to use "UGG AUSTRALIA" as their trademark. Which seems reasonable enough to me. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that “ugg is considered a generic name of a style of boot” is also incorrect. UGG is a registered trademark throughout the world. [6] In 2005 the validity of the UGG trademark was upheld by the Federal Court in Los Angles, California. [7]

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

It is fine to disagree on matters of opinion but facts are facts. UGG is a registered trademark worldwide [8] and the validity of the UGG trademark has been upheld in multiple decisions in multiple countries. For example: the United States[9], Netherlands[10] UDRP [11], and United Kingdom [12] Please review these references. I don’t think this is a debatable issue. The only reliable contrary reference is the UGH-BOOTS decision in Australia, and that fact is referenced in the revised text.--Factchk (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unfortunately for companies trying to protect their brands, it can indeed be both in terms of how people use it. See Xerox, Kleenex etc. I have no doubt those brands are trademarked, but their protected usage -- in the common vernacular -- has been long since usurped. — e. ripley\talk 11:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This is about balance. The article is not about the specific item of footwear produced by Decker, but about the generic style of footwear known as Ugg Boots in their countries of origin. Thus the lead should reflect that aspect first, and the existence of a trademarked term second. If the article was about Deckers or the specific UGG AUSTRALIA brand then the balance would go the other way, with the focus on the brand first, and the generic term second. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby's assessment. — e. ripley\talk 11:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Bilby. This article is about the boots, not the trademark dispute. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Bilby, I dispute your assertion “that (from a historical perspective) the original name for the style was, and is, ugg boot, not sheepskin boot.” Research indicates that Anthony Sidney James Stedman registered UGH-BOOTS and UGH as trade marks in Australia – the first trade mark registered from January 25, 1971. Australia Registration of UGH-BOOTS 1971 A number of Australian dictionaries have been consulted. A Dictionary of Austral English (1972),[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857665/morris-austral-english-pdf-april-14-2010-2-33-pm-121k?da=y Edward E. Morris, A Dictionary of Austral English, (Sydney:Syndey University Press), 1972] The Australian Language (1966)[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857670/the-australian-language-baker-pdf-april-14-2010-2-33-pm-184k?da=y Sidney J. Baker, The Australian Language, (Sydney:Currawong Publishing Co.), 1966] and The Australian National Dictionary (1988)[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857660/australian-national-dictionary-pdf-april-14-2010-2-29-pm-253k?da=y The Australian National Dictionary, ed W. S. Ramson, (Melbourne:Oxford University Press), 1988] None show an entry of “ug / ugg/ ugh” in reference to sheepskin footwear prior to the Macquarie dictionary in 1981. For decades, Macquarie’s listed “ugh boot” with the notation “[Trademark]” indicating trademark origin. The entry for “ugh boot” in The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2d ed 2004) also indicates that the term is proprietary.[http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857762/australian-oxford-dictionary-pdf-april-14-2010-3-47-pm-455k?da=y Australian Oxford Dictionary, ed. Bruce Moore, (Melbourne: Oxford University Press), 2004] Essentially all evidence of boot makers using the term generically is post 1971. There is a dearth of credible evidence showing that UGG or UGH was in common generic use in Australia prior to 1971. Accordingly, it would be more accurate to say: Although UGH started out as a trademark, at some point it fell into generic use in Australia. --Factchk (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Enough

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

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

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

Hesperian 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That may help, as in that case the whole trademark issue becomes moot. I still have two concerns, though. The first is that I can see "sheepskin boots" referring to any boot made from sheepskin, whether or not they match the ugg style, although I'm not sure how big an issue that would be. The second is that we still get back to the basic problem that "ugg boot" was in usage prior to being trademarked as the common term to describe a style of boot. That it was later trademarked is interesting, but but doesn't deny the earlier usage, and means that (from a historical perspective) the original name for the style was, and is, ugg boot, not sheepskin boot. Anyway, if consensus is for this I certainly won't object, although we might need to play with the wording.
To be honest, though, this all seems a tad odd. The first line of the lead just describes the boot, irrespective of whether you think of it as a generic style or as a particular brand. The second line then makes it clear that the name is trademarked in some countries. It is only after that that we mention how it is also a generic name for the style. Hence we get description, followed by trademark claim, followed by generic usage, which actually seems to be weighted towards the trademark to me. - Bilby (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue of what "sheepskin boots" refers to occurred to me too, so I did a Google Image Search on the term, and came up with pages and pages and pages of uggs. It does seems as though the terms are synonymous. If they are not, then the sheepskin boots redirect will need to be eliminated. Hesperian 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, companies that had previously sold as ugg boots were forced to sell as sheepskin boots due to the trademark issues, except in Australia and NZ. So I'm not surprised that the images for sheepskin boots will be of that style. I don't know if a non-fleece lined boot made of sheepskin would also use the term, which is where I get a tad lost. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sheepskin boots, known as Ugg boots in countries where the UGG trademark is not protected, are.... -- whether or not Deckers happens to like it, I think it would be more realistic to say Sheepskin boots, known as ugg boots or uggs regardless of the local status of the UGG trademark, are.... (However, I don't claim to know.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Hoary here. In fact, I don't see why the trademark even needs to be mentioned in the lead. Sure if I was Deckers I'd be out there trying to push my POV on Wikipedia, but we have WP:NPOV that says we are to aim for neutra-targeted text. Fact remains that, for encyclopaedia readers, "what are ugg boots?" is answered by "sheepskin boots (possibly a subset, we're still not sure) that at best guess originated in NZ/Australia at such and such a time. And by the way, the term UGG has been trademarked in various places at various times but this has little to do with explaining what ugg boots are". Donama (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I personally agree with you Donama, I don't see how -- in a holistic sense -- the trademark dispute is enough to mention it in the lead. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to edit war over and as a compromise position a brief mention is acceptable to me. I am ambivalent about moving the article to sheepskin boots. — e. ripley\talk 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, democracy is wonderful, but facts should not be determined by popular vote. Your entry (“in some countries the Ugg trademark is still upheld, but in Australia and New Zealand, where the boots appear to have originated, ugg boot is a generic name”) is factually inaccurate. Donoma, your POV is valid only in Australia not in the rest of the English speaking world. The facts are that UGG is a registered trademark in essentially every country of the world [UGG® Tradmarks http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1834017/uggglobaltms-pdf-march-31-2010-3-03-pm-88k?da=y] and has been upheld in decisions in the U.S.,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1830421/koolaburra-sj-decision-pdf-march-29-2010-5-01-pm-751k?da=y] the Netherlands,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1835726/dutchdecision12-08-pdf-april-1-2010-5-17-pm-5-9-meg?da=y] U.K.,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1835727/nominet-drs-07638-pdf-april-1-2010-5-19-pm-80k?da=y] China,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857661/china-decision-2009-pdf-april-14-2010-2-29-pm-395k?da=y] Turkey,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1846567/turkeydecision9-06-pdf-april-8-2010-9-00-am-76k?da=y] Sweden,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1843581/swedish-decision-2006-pdf-april-6-2010-3-20-pm-144k?da=y] Korea,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857663/korea-decision-original-language-pdf-april-14-2010-2-30-pm-296k?da=y] Singapore,[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1857671/singapore-decision-2009-english-pdf-april-14-2010-2-34-pm-72k?da=y] and UDRP.[ http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1835728/national-arbitration-forum-udrp-1248979-pdf-april-1-2010-5-20-pm-40k?da=y][13][14] [15] When proprietary terms are used, it is proper to identify them as such in the onset. See, Wikipedia entries for Jeep, Astro-Turf and BandAid. When you post inaccurate statements, it misleads encyclopedia readers. The edits I have made are supported with facts, as shown in the above citations. I hope you agree that this strikes a proper balance. The goal is to make the page accurate, and as revised it does not to promote Deckers. I am comfortable proceeding with Wikipedia’s procedures for resolving this issue, but am hopeful that reason will win out and intervention will not be necessary. If you disagree we can issue an RFC. If you have reliable sources for your position, please share them. Again, please review the citations I have provided. --Factchk (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't think I've made any such suggestion about an article titled "Sheepskin boots" or similar. Perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else.
Actually I agreed to the suggestion above, but with a alteration with which you disagree.
Yes, UGG is a registered trademark in many countries. But the article, however titled, is not about this one brand of uggs, it's about any brand of uggs. Like it or not, sheepskin boots are known as ugg boots or uggs in many countries other than Australia and New Zealand. Here is one (boring) example, from a website that appears to be US based (though I'm not sure).
No, I am not going to issue an RFC. There's just been one. If you want to issue another one, you're welcome to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

So make an article about this one footwear brand, if you think it's so important. Meanwhile, this article is about uggs in general. Do you want it retitled "sheepskin boots" or similar, or do you insist on simply hijacking it to turn it into an article on a single company? -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, this is getting rather tiresome. — e. ripley\talk 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

At this point you've ignored consensus enough that I will be reporting you for tendentious editing and edit warring, and we'll let an admin decide whether you've stepped over the line or not. — e. ripley\talk 14:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The report can be found at the bottom of this page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — e. ripley\talk 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No it can't. It can instead be found here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I updated it on his talk page but neglected to do so here (thank you for the flag to it). — e. ripley\talk 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I totally agree, this isn't ideal and I would have liked to see him just stop trying to shove his version through, but I had no confidence that would suddenly start happening after yesterday's edit; arguing's fine, good even if it's productive, repeatedly reverting against consensus isn't.
To the rest, I personally don't think that there needs to be a separate article for UGG the brand, considering that there's both already an article for Deckers and also, for the generic usage here. I think some kind of separate section would probably be appropriate for both articles (Deckers and here) to varying degrees (and would also agree that if we do that within this article, it'd be appropriate to outline other major brands as you mentioned). Though, with that being said, I wouldn't object if someone proposed to create an article specifically for UGG brand boots, since there's some precedent here for creating articles about specific shoe brand models (Air Force 1 (shoe) is what immediately comes to mind). In terms of generic reference point, I also tend to think of them as just "uggs" (rather than "ugg boots"). Maybe it should be moved to that? I don't really have an opinion about moving them to something like Sheepskin boots, if that is what folks think is preferable that's fine with me. — e. ripley\talk 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only generic term for the style is ugg boot, or variants thereof - at least, in Australia, that's the normal way of referring to them. I don't know what they are referred to as elsewhere. I'm not sure that moving it to a variant will help, though, noting that Decker used UGH-BOOT and argued against variants as well, as far as I understand it. I still don't understand the problem, though, in that the first line of the lede has always been generic - it describes a style of boot, which is just as applicable to UGG brand is it is to the generic style:
Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs) are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface.
That same line could go on an article about the specific brand and still be a viable way of opening it. Then we used to note (and I'd have no complaints if we do so again) that there is both a trademarked instance of that style and a generic style. The opening made the article neutral, in that covered both usages at roughly the same time, but Factchk seemed to want to push one usage above the other, which was (and is) my ongoing concern. - Bilby (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Factchk is the latest in a series of editors to point out that "UGG" is a registered trademark in much of the world. I happen to think that this results from a bizarre serial refusal to acknowledge that "ugg" is a well established English word; but trademark registrations, no matter how inane, do register those trademarks until they're overturned. Factchk asks us to compare this article with, among others, Jeep. Like it or not (and I don't), the first sentence of that article reads "Jeep is an automobile marque (and registered trademark) of Chrysler": Deckers' claims get much less prominent treatment. I'd be inclined to fix the disparity by deemphasizing trademark registration within Jeep and others, but anyway a series of SPAs is likely to continue banging on here about how "UGG" is a registered trademark where most readers live. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think that all sheepskin boots are ugg boots. Ugg boots are a particular style or design of sheepskin boots. Thus, redirecting this to 'sheepskin boots' doesn't make sense. As to stating that ugg is a trademark, the article mentions that already. In fact there's a whole section called 'Trademark'. Donama (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed, 1997) has this entry:
Ugg /0ʌg/ adjective. M20.
[ORIGIN Perh. abbreviation of ugly adjective.]

Ugg boot, a kind of soft sheepskin boot (proprietary name).
Mitch Ames (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiktionary gives more detailed definition: "In Australia ugg boots and variants like ug, ugh or uggs are used generically. A trademark of UGH-BOOTS was registered in 1971 but was not enforced and generic users of the terms successfully applied for its removal in 2006 (Deckers Outdoor Corporation v B&B McDougal ATMO 5 (16 January 2006))." [16] Donama (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Jeep, Astro_turf, and Band-Aid are really good comparisons because these terms originated out of the trademarked product through general use and market dominance. Ugg boots is the exact opposite the term was an established well before it became a trademark, in one country US the trademark was then sold to a corporation and who registered it elsewhere. Since then the Deckers had tried to rewrite the origins of Ugg boots, the trademark was then overturned by an Australian court which disolved the trademark in Australia and NZ by recognising the terms cultural origins and significance, Decker did not challenge that decision. This article should follow the same outline, with the lead describing design, origin expansion inot international markets. It should also mention the term Sheepskin boots as an alternative name/decsription for Ugg boots because of the enforcement of a trademark. The trademark should be a separate paragraph which gives a brief synopsis of how it evolved and then how its been subject of court decisions. The article should be very clear that the design and origin of the boots is not Deckers but that Decker holds the Trademark to the term "UGG" in most countries and that because of this the style of boot is called sheepskin boots except where court decisions have recognised the cultural significance/origins of the Ugg Boot Gnangarra 04:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Your point of view is factually incorrect.
One, in the MacDougal decision, Deckers Australian trade mark registration for UGH-BOOTS was removed solely for non-use (See paragraphs 2, 39 and 43). Deckers Australian trade mark registration for UGG AUSTRALIA was upheld by IP Australia and remains validly registered in Australia and New Zealand.
Second, legal arguments that the UGG trademark is invalid or a generic term have been repeatedly rejected by the courts in several countries. USA, UDRP (UDRP Decision 217320 UDRP Decision 225456 UDRP Decision 216873) The Netherlands, and United Kingdom
Third, there is no credible support for the argument that “ugg or ugh boots” was commonly or widely used in Australia prior to Shane Stedman adopting it as a trade mark in the 1960’s and registering it in 1971. The MacDougal decision references use of the “ug, ugg and ugh” terms as a product description in the 1970’s but not before. The “ugg” term did not appear in any dictionary in reference to boots until the 1980’s and then it was listed a proprietary term. Accordingly, at some point the term lost its exclusive trade mark significance in Australia, but is not clear when that occurred. I fully agree that the style of boot was of Australian origin, albeit when and how is matter of legend - difficult to separate fact from fantasy. We do not know what it was originally called – one legend is that it was called “fug” by WWI pilots.
Regardless, the issue here is what to call the thing and more specifically what to title the article. Currently, in Australia it is called an “ugg boot,” but in the rest of the world it is currently called a “sheepskin boot.” Given that this article should have significance outside of Australia, it should be titled “Sheepskin boot” as that is the universal term. As other commentators have pointed out, this article should be about the boot and not about the brand of one company. As long as the article is titled “Ugg boots” it will be recognized by non-Aussie readers as that the brand of one company, and I for one will continue to insist that it be correctly identified as a “trademark” or “proprietary.” --Factchk (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the POV of the Decker representative, Wikipedia is not here to rewrite history to views of that expressed by the company representative. You clearly have a WP:COI are a WP:SPA the article gives coverage of your trademark and the fact that your company disputes that Ugg boots ever existed prior to it. When people read the article they see that Ugg boots existed before the trademark was registered, they'll see that Ugg boots originated in Australia/New Zealand, because thats what a enecyclopaedia does it gives the whole story and lets people use their intelligence. There is no bias in writing the about Ugg boots originated, there no bias in including the trademark holders position and issues, the bias comes when the article is renamed to reflect the view of a single POV. Gnangarra 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Gnangarra – Please do not misrepresent me. My comments are factually accurate as supported by the cited references, which is in the ultimate interest of the encyclopedia.--Factchk (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugg_boots/Archive_2&oldid=376776889"