Jump to content

Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Edit warring

I've protected the article again due to reverting. Whatever issues there are with this topic please resolve them another way. Perhaps an RfC or informal mediation would help. See WP:DR.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's start by talking!

This proposed edit[1] (which is removed in the current edit-protected version) adds the following:

(1) Since they were introduced to the United States by an Australian surfer in 1979, and then (2) marketed worldwide by the company he founded, Ugg Holdings Inc., (3) ugg boots have gained rapidly in popularity. (4) The company reported sales of US$14.5 million worth of ugg boots in 1995, and US$689 million in 2008. - numbers added for purposes of discussion

The May 1, 2010 version included the following shorter statement:

In the early 2000s, they became a fashion trend in the United States, leading to increased global sales.

We do need to say something about the style's becoming a worldwide phenomenon, because that's one of the most important events in the history of the boot, right? And if the next paragraph of the lede is going to be about a trademark dispute we ought to lay the foundation for why there is a trademark issue at all. Thus I think points #1 and #3 from the addition are crucial, but #2 and #4 are not particularly necessary in the lede. I think the old version is more or less adequate, but I would expand it slightly and clean it up, something like:

The style of boot was introduced to the United States by an Australian surfer in 1979 and marketed worldwide by the company he founded, leading to increased popularity worldwide in the late 1990s through 200s.

Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is to be included in the top about the boots' growth in popularity, I then would agree with your premise here generally (along the lines of: your labeled points 1 and 3 would be important to mention, 2 and 4 shouldn't be mentioned at all). However I'm still not convinced about any of this being included in the lead paragraph, though I'm not totally closed to it. However, the formulation that's in the lead right now is totally unacceptable, up to and including the grammatical change I made last night, which someone seems to have broken again. — e. ripley\talk 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't like language such as "worldwide phenomenon": it's gushy.
The second paragraph of the current lead is a long and contorted sentence:
There has been a dispute between manufacturers of this style of boots, primarily in Australia and New Zealand, and Deckers Outdoor Corporation, an American footwear manufacturer that purchased Ugg Holdings in 1995 and markets its own brand of boots in the United States and many other countries under the "UGG" mark, as to whether the mark is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection.
If material such this should be in the lead, then how about this as a rewrite of it:
There has been a dispute between manufacturers of ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, and Deckers Outdoor Corporation, an American footwear company that bought Ugg Holdings in 1995 and markets its boots in many countries with the "UGG" mark, as to whether "ugg" is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection.
No I don't like it much either, but I think it's a bit less contorted than what's there now. -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
How about something along the lines of "Although a generic term in Australasia, where they originated, in some other countries similar names are trademarks owned by Deckers Outdoor Corporation"? This plus a hatnote is really all the mention that Deckers' boots would warrant, particularly on an article about the generic term. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against that general idea, but "similar names" seems perversely and unhelpfully vague: it would suggest to me Puggs, Ukks, or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the first thing we need to do is decide whether this item is about the generic style of boot or the UGG(TM) brand. As far as I know Deckers does not own the style. I'm of a similar mind to Ripley|e above. I feel that the article definitely warrants the following -

1) A mention of the boots gaining greater worldwide notoriety thanks to Deckers. 2) A mention of the trademark dispute with regard to the NAME "Ugg Boots".

What I feel does NOT belong here -

1) Any mention whatsoever about concerns for counterfeit boots. It doesn't belong here. Yes, Deckers have played an important part in the global history of Ugg boots, but their concerns with knock-offs of their product belong on the UGG Australia page and indeed already appear there. 2) We already know that Deckers have increased the global exposure of the boot. We don't need a big rundown on their sales. This, once again, belongs on the UGG Australia page and once again, already appears there. 3) Any gushy language whatsoever "sales beyond their wildest dreams", "worldwide sensation" and so forth.

Part of me just thinks we should make the whole thing even more generic and rename the article to "Sheepskin Boots" and strip everything but the barest mention of Deckers. It would be a shame because I'm pretty sure most people call this type of boot, regardless of who makes them and whatever trademark laws apply in their region, Ugg boots, but at the moment this article about a generic style of boot is being lost among "The Deckers Story".

I feel like user "K10wnsta" had the best ideas for fixing this article in his several expansive posts further up the discussions. Mandurahmike (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for the lede

Incorporating all of the above suggestions for the lede, plus a few refinements of my own.

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. Ugg boots are believed to have been first developed in Australia or New Zealand, although the exact date is uncertain. The style was introduced to the United States by an Australian surfer in 1979 and marketed by the company he founded, Ugg Holdings Inc., leading to increased popularity worldwide beginning in the late 1990s.
There has been a trademark dispute between manufacturers of this style of boots, primarily in Australia and New Zealand, and Deckers Outdoor Corporation, an American footwear manufacturer that purchased Ugg Holdings and markets the "UGG" brand of boots worldwide. The dispute concerns whether "ugg" is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection.

This brings together all the elements that have met the least resistance in the current discussion. The first sentence is unchanged. The second sentence is essentially Wikidemon's creation. The lengthy and awkward sentence in the second paragraph has been split into two sentences that are less cumbersome. All the essential facts are presented to prevent any confusion by the reader. Please indicate below, with the traditional Support or Oppose, what you think of this lede.

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose because this ...The style was introduced to the United States by an Australian surfer in 1979 and marketed by the company he founded, Ugg Holdings Inc., leading to increased popularity worldwide beginning in the late 1990s.... is at best inaccurate compared to the article content, and at worst misleading. Uggs were introduced into the US in the 1960's with the surf culture(read the article and the court documents), and marketing of Ugg boot was by many companies not just Ugg Holdings it wasnt until Deckers purchased Ugg Holdings and started enforcing the trademark that marketing of Uggs was sole domain Deckers(California court documents). While I dont like the wording of this particluar sentence the basic premise for the lead is ok. Its insufficient per WP:LEAD The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. because its being written as a concession to dispute about the article content rather than because of the article content. Also WP:voting is evil Gnangarra 13:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually I've always felt this "Young Australian surfer" bit read like the Ugg Boots version of the story of Col' Harlon Sanders and his amazing new method of cooking fried chicken. It reads like promotional material straight from Deckers. I suspect that this story originated with Deckers. If this is the case an "according to" might go well in there.Mandurahmike (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Happy to disappoint you Mike, but the source is the San Francisco Chronicle, a thoroughly reliable source with a formidable fact-checking process. Here's the source, Mike. No corporate propaganda involved. You see, original applicants' names on trademark applications worldwide are a matter of public record, and easily checked. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

alternative

  • I suggest --

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. Ugg boots are believed to have been first developed in Australia or New Zealand, although the exact date is uncertain. During 1960's and 1970s ugg boots were popular with competative surfers to keep their feet warm, Australia surfer Brian Smith founded Ugg Holding. Inc in 1979 and brought the trademark UGG. In 1995 Deckers Outdoor Corporation, an American footwear manufacturer purchased Ugg Holdings and increased marketing of Ugg boots under the name UGG Australia causing a significant rise in popularity of ugg boots. Deckers has since 1999 been in dispute primarily with Australan manufactirers over whether "ugg" is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection. Call by Animal liberation groups critical about the use of animal skins resulted in Pamela Anderson publically denouncing the wearing of ugg boots

Feel free to tweak but at least it more accurately represents the current article content Gnangarra 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try "tweaking" it a bit. My copy editing compulsion leads me to a few of these changes. First use of a term in an article (see the word "trademark") is where the Wikilink belongs. Pamela Anderson's withdrawal as the self-appointed ugg boots spokesmodel is barely notable enough to make it into the article, not the lede.

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. Ugg boots are believed to have been first developed in Australia or New Zealand. During the 1960s and 1970s, ugg boots were popular with competitive surfers to keep their feet warm. Australia surfer Brian Smith founded Ugg Holdings, Inc. in 1979 and registered the trademark UGG in several countries.

In 1995 Deckers Outdoor Corporation, an American footwear manufacturer, purchased Ugg Holdings and marketed ugg boots worldwide under the subsidiary UGG Australia, causing a substantial rise in popularity of ugg boots. Since 1999, Deckers has been in dispute primarily with Australan manufacturers over whether "ugg" is a generic term, ineligible for trademark protection.

How does that look? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with something like this:

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs ,ug boots, ugh boots, uggies, sheepskin boots and ugly boots)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole.

Ugg boots are believed to have been first developed in Australia or New Zealand. During the 1960s and 1970s, ugg boots were popular with competitive surfers to keep their feet warm. In(Work out what date to use or general time frame to use) they gained greater world prominence through the popularity of boots produced by American company UGG Australia.

It's short, it's to the point and it leaves open the possibility to expand further down the article without making it either all about Deckers or all about Australia. Listing other names for the boots beyond the Deckers-inspired "uggs" is also important in my view. The bits about Brian Smith and the trademark dispute belong in the article, but having it all in the lead places undue emphasis on these elements. Perhaps it's the journalist in me talking, but I'd prefer to see the establishment of the basic "need to know facts" about exactly -what this item is- and then cover the details in the body.Mandurahmike (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Good. This one is really succinct and informative without getting into detail (as a lead shouldn't). I suggest we start with this one and look at tweaking it as needed if there are concerns. Donama (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with this version generally speaking, but I do think the trademark dispute should be treated in some fashion. Unlike a journalistic lead, where you can make a more narrowly tailored point, here the lead is supposed to summarize the high points of the information that follows, and considering how enormous the trademark dispute section is compared to the rest of the article, I think it deserves mention in some fashion. — e. ripley\talk 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This was the lead as I had it, before the most recent scuffle broke out.
Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. Ugg boots are believed to have been first developed in Australia or New Zealand, although the exact date is uncertain.
There has been significant dispute over the trademark status of this style of boots between generic manufacturers, primarily in Australia and New Zealand, and Deckers Outdoor Corporation. Deckers, an American footwear manufacturer, markets its own brand of boots, trademarked as UGG® in the United States and many other countries. — e. ripley\talk 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem we have here is there's no actual dispute about the "style" of boots at all. The trademark dispute is with the name "Ugg Boots". The confusion arises because Deckers considers "Ugg Boots" to mean the boots and patterns produced and sold by deckers -- they see NAME and BRAND as one and the same, while it's clear the term was originally generic and remains so in some countries. So our problem is we have one group who say Ugg Boots = Deckers boots and designs and one group who says Ugg Boots = "unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole" as described in the lead. There's no dispute whatsoever with regard to the style and as such I feel it's confusing that issue to mention the trademark dispute issue in the lead, particularly after we have just defined Ugg Boots in such a way to indicate the article is about the style - something that clearly doesn't fall under the confines of the trademark. I don't think for the sake of avoiding skewing the article one way or the other that it does any harm to first mention the trademark dispute deeper in.
So in summary - again, we have to decide if this article is about the -style- of boot or the -brand- of boot. If it's about the brand then the brand IS the style. If it's about the style then "Ugg boot" for the purposes of this entry has nothing to do with any brands. In such an article disputes about genericism of the name constitute ancillary info which, while valid, shouldn't be in the lead. I feel the best solution is a lead which mentions Deckers' role in the increased popularity of the style but doesn't go into details about trademarks and so forth and a disambiguation "This article is about the style of boots, for the brand see UGG Australia" up the top. By all means have a whole subheading about the trademark dispute and their rise to international popularity deeper in this very article as these things are certainly important in the history of this -style- of boot.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. Of course the trademark dispute is about the style, which is what this article is about and should be about. Deckers' position is that there is no generic usage, that their brand is all there is or should be. Naturally then an article that is about the generic style should mention the dispute with Deckers over generic usage, and since the article does indeed treat that subject and rather extensively at that, it needs to be summarized in the lead. — e. ripley\talk 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The thing is the lead needs to also establish notability, as much as we all like our ugg boots without the trademark dispute ugg boots would struggle to actually be notable as such we cant and shouldnt ignore that dispute in the lead, e ripley offers the minimum we need to cover though MM version is ok as it gives a clear link to Ugg Australia Gnangarra 13:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
So in summary - again, we have to decide if this article is about the -style- of boot or the -brand- of boot. No Mike, it's about both. You can't have one without the other. The generic term has been used repeatedly, and with very limited success (in Australia and New Zealand only), in the trademark disputes. For those who want to keep the lede down to a bare skeleton, read this: WP:LEAD. For an article this long, and a lede this short, there's actually a warning template out there somewhere that would instruct editors to make the lede longer. Read this section in particular. This guideline is part of WP:MOS and its spirit should not be defeated by producing two paragraphs that are extremely short. I think the version that Gnangarra and I were working on at the start of this section would best satisfy WP:LEAD. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"No Mike, it's about both" - And that is why the article is currently unstable; it's trying to be two completely different things: a generic Australasian style of boot with a long history, and an American trademark which is currently experiencing an ephemeral craze. It needs to be either one or the other, not both; and as there already seems to be at least two articles covering the craze the most logical solution would be for this article to be about the generic style. I do not think that any mention of Deckers is necessary in the lead, other than a hatnote directing people who want to find out about Deckers' boots to the correct article. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dave completely. The article cannot be both - it would be like making an article about "Coke" and having it be about the long established brand of cola and AT THE SAME TIME, about soft drinks in general since there's a decent number of Americans who have come to use "Coke" as a generic for all soft drinks in the same manner that "kleenex" has become generic for facial tissues. Can you imagine if the Coke entry was filled with bits about Dr Pepper, 7UP etc? Sensibly they don't do this and separate the generic and the trademark into two articles. The Coke article talks about Coca Cola, the Soft Drinks article mentions Coke as a generic term for soft drink. More and more Americans are calling soft drinks in general "Coke". What happens if in twn years time 85% of the nation does this? What happens if someone in Asia register's some completely different footwear article as an Ugg Boot, everyone in India and China starts wearing them and the trademark is upheld in those nations? Then we'd have to make it about the generic, the brand, the style, the other style and the other brand. Now, you might ask, why then does the trademark not take precedence here and have the generic term shuffled off to something like "Sheepskin boots" with a list of alternative names? Quite simply, regardless of current copyright issues Ugg Boots were generic long before they were trademarked anywhere. If they were a brand that had become generic I would fully support changing this to "Sheepskin boots" which are sometimes known as Ugg Boots, but we're in this unique situation where someone's trademarked a generic term and no matter what international courts not au fait with Australian and New Zealand culture say, they can't change the fact that sheepskin boots, regardless of who makes them are, well, Ugg Boots. Again - UGG Australia already has an entry that's almost verbatim the stuff written about Ugg Boots here - the extra content on the UGG Australia entry has pretty much all been a fixture on this page at some time or other. It's ridiculous to foster instability and lack of focus on this article when there's a perfectly good article at Ugg Australia which does exactly what some of you want to do here - word for word. Make this article about the generic - throw in a disambiguation link to UGG Australia and the problem is solved. Any attempts to make this article about both style and trademark doom it to continued chaos.Mandurahmike (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Then it's clear what you want is for this article to be titled Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand. Because in the rest of the world, the term "ugg boots" is understood to mean a specific brand. It is not only the law, but also public opinion (see the survey in the Koolaburra case, where 84% of respondents who expressed an opinion believed "ugg boots" to be a brand name, not a generic term). If you think "the article cannot be both," look at the Budweiser article again, which has been fairly stable. But I suspect that there will continue to be edit wars here until Deckers, once again, is reduced to nothing more than the chump that lost the Australian trademark case.
So let's just rename it as Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, revert it to the July 31 version, redirect the term "Ugg boots" to UGG Australia, and go our separate ways. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand would be both anomalous and ungainly as an article title. And why should "Ugg boots" be redirected to UGG Australia? The Budweiser article is an introduction cum disambig page that might indeed serve as a model. (It's rather good, though it clearly needs work: e.g. first naming two distinct Czech producers of what those producers term Budweiser, and later talking of a previously unmentioned company as "the maker of the Czech Republic's Budweiser"; my emphasis.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"84% of respondents who expressed an opinion believed "ugg boots" to be a brand name, not a generic term" - A worryingly high proportion of Americans also believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by President Bush, and that President Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary. If you want to contribute to an encyclopaedia where the content is based on belief, rather than historical fact, I'd suggest you search for someone who is trying to recreate the works of Sellar and Yeatman. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
84% of some 400 women in Claifornia nothing more nothing less the survey was for the california court case and extrapolation to apply to the rest of the world is inappropriate original research. This Indian casestudy(previously supplied by P&W) refers to Ugg boots as a generic term that originated in Australia with some waving of the OR wand I see you 400 women in californai extrapolated out to 200million people in the US and raise it 1 billion plus from the sub-contentant that call it a generic term. As I said before there is no logical reason to separate the trademark dispute from this article its the reason that Uggs are notable. With that comes Deckers UGG Australia, the registration of the trade mark and its subsequent sale to Deckers is part of the history. The dispute with Uggs-n-Rugs is the one which confirmed its a generic term in Australia, the californain court that decision that ruled Deckers own the trademark in the US, both need coverage here. The Dutch decision was about counterfeit UGG AUstralia products and should be in that article. The lead should include, a description of the boot, its origin/history/short time line, Deckers as the major/primary player currently in history of Uggs and the trade mark dispute(as its point of notability). I also think the Animal rights issue should be briefly mentioned as thats a secondary point of notability(significant coverage) which involved individuals and organisations of note, also its more about the style than the individual manufacturers meanign that this part shouldnt be in Ugg Australia article unless there was an actual incident involving Ugg Australia/Deckers that was notable. Gnangarra 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand would be both anomalous and ungainly as an article title. I've seen longer. But it's ungainly, that's for sure. If you can write a title that clearly limits the boundaries of the article to Australia and New Zealand, and is more "gainly" (is that even a word), have at it mate.

And why should "Ugg boots" be redirected to UGG Australia? Because for the 6.7 billion people who don't live in Australia and New Zealand, it's a registered trademark. Those 100+ countries include the 20 most populous countries in the world. China, India, Brazil, Russia, US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Nigeria, Argentina, France, Italy, Egypt, Turkey, South Korea, Ukraine, Colombia, Mexico, Poland ... just about every country in the world except Australia, New Zealand, Rwanda and Kyrgyzstan. Even in a lot of countries that don't have "UGG" or "UGG Australia" as a registered trademark, they get their imports through countries that do have it as a trademark, so the law effectively applies to them.

The Budweiser article is an introduction cum disambig page that might indeed serve as a model. (It's rather good ...) Then we agree. A generic term's article should primarily cover any trademark disputes that arise from it. The trademark disputes are what makes it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article anyway. I have maintained for a month now that (A) the trademark disputes must be covered more thoroughly, (B) this entire article was a WP:WEIGHT violation when I showed up a month ago, and certain editors want to make it that way again, (C) we can't focus the entire article on what "ugg boots" means in Australia and New Zealand, we have to focus primarily on what it means in the rest of the world, and (D) the Deckers team has made UGGs a luxury designer brand. Deckers has been very, very lucky in getting a large number of (both solicited and unsolicited) celebrity endorsements. Solicited endorsements are called "celebrity seeding" and you can read more about that in the Indian case study.

A worryingly high proportion of Americans also believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by President Bush, and that President Obama is a Muslim and was born in Kenya ... So what? Your entire premise is based on public opinion and belief: "Ugg boots is a generic term." Well, in over 100 countries it's a registered trademark. And the only survey evidence we have, outside of Australia and New Zealand, shows that public opinion and belief correspond with the law. Remember, in the survey 84% of the people who expressed an opinion said it's a brand name, not a generic term. Deckers was spending all those millions to increase brand consciousness worldwide. Coupled with the celebrity endorsements and product placement in films and TV, it has had enormous success.

... with some waving of the OR wand I see you 400 women in californai extrapolated out to 200million people in the US and raise it 1 billion plus from the sub-contentant that call it a generic term. Umm, no. That is not supported by a survey. It's just one writer's opinion. Read the Indian case study more thoroughly[2] and by the way, there are 310 million people in the United States.

The Dutch decision was about counterfeit UGG AUstralia products and should be in that article. And in this one, since the defense unsuccessfully claimed it's a generic term, and this article is about the generic term; and the counterfeit boots were made in Melbourne, Australia. There's a lot more going on in that case than just counterfeiting, otherwise I might agree with you. The Australian trademark decision was about the generic term. From an Uggs-N-Rugs perspective, you have to take the bad with the good. If you're going to invest a long paragraph in a decision where the "generic term defense" was a success, you should also invest a long paragraph in each and every decision worldwide where the "generic term defense" was a failure.

I also think the Animal rights issue should be briefly mentioned ... Yes, in the body of the article, but not the lede. Try to remember WP:WEIGHT. Weight is apportioned according to the number of reliable sources that present the particular facts. There are roughly 30 reliable sources about the trademark disputes, 10-20 that cover the meteoric rise in the popularity of ugg boots, 10 that cover the pre-1971 existence of ugg boots, and three or four that cover Pamela Anderson's withdrawal as the self-appointed spokesmodel on animal rights concerns. So weight in the lede as well as the body of the article should be apportioned accordingly. If you want to expand the lede to 200 words, we could probably squeeze in 10 or 15 about the animal rights issue. But if we do it that way, the 200-word lede should have 100 words about the trademark disputes, and 50 about the increased sales. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's imagine a situation where something well known in America but far lesser known elsewhere becomes a BRAND in the UK and takes off around the globe. Perhaps "Root Beer" or "Rachel Ray". Does it not seem ludicrous that we could end up with an article titled "Root Beer in the USA and Canada"? This ignores the history and the original meaning of the term and is about as unencyclopaedic as you could get and sets a terrible precedent for Wikipedia.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on this point Mike. Also, I agree with P&W (!!) that the animal rights bit doesn't belong in the lead. — e. ripley\talk 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well then, if the article is to be about ugg boots in the entire world, it must cover all uses of the generic term by trademark infringers and counterfeiters as a defense in Europe, North America and the Far East. It must cover the most notable manufacturer of ugg boots, in proportion to its representation in reliable sources. Can any of you find a reliable source that describes use of the generic term outside of Australia and New Zealand, by anyone except a counterfeiter's lawyer? Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The response has been underwhelming. I can only conclude that apart from counterfeiters' lawyers, "ugg boots" is not used as a generic term outside Australia and New Zealand, and we should structure the article accordingly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You're too fast to make such an assumption P&W. The term is used generically in the UK too, but I don't have any categorical proof. Donama (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have sources other than what's been outlined please bring them forward. But frankly, I didn't take P&W's posting as a very serious one and so I didn't respond. — e. ripley\talk 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"Your entire premise is based on public opinion and belief" - Please note that it is not I who is basing their argument on an opinion poll! Daveosaurus (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The term is used generically in the UK too ...Well, let's see a reliable source for that, please.
But frankly, I didn't take P&W's posting as a very serious one and so I didn't respond. I'm as serious as a heart attack. Please respond.
Please note that it is not I who is basing their argument on an opinion poll! Well, we all have to base our opinions on something, and you're basing your argument on your perception of public opinion. I'm doing the same thing. The difference is that I have scientific evidence — a survey — to support my perception, and my argument. With all due respect, you have nothing that I've seen so far, except proof by assertion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
We really need to drop any reliance on that poll - it was too limited to be of any value in the discussion here, and was only of use within the confines of the particularly legal case it was run for. That said, this line of reasoning is a red herring. It is impossible to show what percentages of people in each country use "ugg" generically, just as it is impossible to show the percentage that use it to exclusively refer to UGG Australia products. And even if we could, I'm not sure how that would progress the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Ugg boots

Is this article about footwear biased in favor of Australian manufacturers? Do some editors have a conflict of interest? 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting comment from the Wikipedia community on how to proceed. I suggest that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT (and, therefore, WP:NPOV) to cite a newspaper article strongly biased in favor of Australian manufacturers 11 times in the mainspace, while excluding or minimizing content based on several other reliable sources that are more neutral. We have a unique legal question regarding intellectual property law: whether a generic term, used to overturn established trademarks in one or two countries, can not only have its own WP article but exclude material about trademark disputes and counterfeiting in other countries, where the generic term itself has been unsuccessfully used as a defense by trademark infringers and counterfeiters. The motive appears to be removal of material that is inconvenient for Australian manufacturers.

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

There's a large number of neutral reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Australians take up the first 2/3 of this article.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] There are also abundant decisions in arbitration.Australian Aura[12][13][14][15][16][17] In "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear.

I am also concerned about the possible WP:COI of the many Australian and New Zealander editors here and at Deckers Outdoor Corporation. One of them, an Australian WP administrator, has admitted direct contact with the lead Australian manufacturer in litigation to cancel the "UGG" trademark in an Australian court decision. This admin contacted the company directly, entered the factory, took photographs of their products and production facilities, and put them into this article. The possibility that one or more of these editors is a paid marketing employee of one (or more) of the Australian manufacturers cannot be ignored. Their actions, in contacting the manufacturers and editing this mainspace, speak louder than words on this Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is doing at the top of the discussion page; but that little matter aside, it's been less than a month since the last RfC on uggs. -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That one wasn't posted at the RfC noticeboards, nor did it have the RfC tag at the top of this page. Technically, it was just a third opinion from K10wnsta. RfC rules require that it must be placed at the top of the page. Let's proceed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: I see what you mean. That RfC was closed after less than 24 hours by Gnangarra, the admin who initiated contact with the Australian manufacturer. RfC rules require that it must stay in place for 30 days. Since that one lasted less than 24 hours (17 to be exact), I propose that this one should be limited to 29 days. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, for editors new to this article, that one of the counterfeiters was an Australian manufacturer. [18] They copied the UGG logo, the brochure, and even the packaging. They're dishonest. I suggest that their dishonesty, in addition to their corporate marketing efforts, may be percolating onto this page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, look what I just found! Gnangarra has been quietly deleting every WP article about Deckers product lines (Ugg Australia, Teva sandals, Simple Shoes) and redirecting them to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article.[19] And at the same time, Bilby has been removing material from the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, in effect making it the way that the Aussies want Ugg boots to look: lots of material that helps Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments, and less material that Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments might find inconvenient.[20] And look, what a surprise! Both Gnangarra and Bilby are Australians. Fancy that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Who bloody cares where they are from, being Australian has nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia. Stop using the RfC to launch attacks at editors since you are talking about the editor and not the contributions. Also allegations of paid editing doesn't help since you have no proof to prove it as fact. Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Imagine a world where the only automobile manufacturers were Saab Automobile and the Detroit Three, with Saab being by far the largest. Imagine a small group of six WP editors, led by an admin, who are editing both automobile and Saab Automobile articles to make them more favorable to the Detroit Three, and less favorable to Saab. Would it matter to you if all six of them were from Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding area? Is it just a coincidence? How can you be sure of that? Particularly when the admin admits that he contacted General Motors, asked to be let into their factory, took photos of their products and production facilities, and added them to the article about automobiles? And furthermore, one of the Detroit Three (not sure which one) demonstrated its enormous dishonesty by flooding the market in the Netherlands with fake Saab Automobiles built in Detroit?
By the way, Bidgee, these same editors have been very aggressive in their attacks against editors who don't go along with their plans for these articles: claims that we're sockpuppets, or that we have COIs of our own, or that we're making legal threats, or that we're defining all Australian ugg boots marketed in Australia as counterfeit. So let's all stop launching attacks at editors, shall we? And let's address the quality of the edits, and the obvious violation of WP:WEIGHT these edits have created. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
P&W: ... one of the counterfeiters was an Australian manufacturer. [21] They copied the UGG logo, the brochure, and even the packaging. They're dishonest. They are indeed. (Or anyway, they were. I've no idea where they are now.) P&W: I suggest that their dishonesty, in addition to their corporate marketing efforts, may be percolating onto this page. I suggest that these aren't. I don't think that anybody here has been defending the "rights" of any outfit other than Deckers to copy and make money off what's specific to Deckers (e.g. its logo, brochure, or packaging). ¶ Meanwhile, if one editor lives near a manufacturer of uggs and gets the permission of that manufacturer to take photos of the manufacturing process and to add them to the article, all to the good. (What's odd to me is the contrast between the great size of the original images, suggesting an expensive camera, and their obvious lack of a few seconds' worth of work in Gimp or similar. I'd do the latter myself, if the file sizes weren't so big as to cause Gimp on my humble netbook -- just one piddling GB of RAM -- to freeze. Another day, on a bigger computer.) ¶ Now, there may be something amiss in Gnangarra's set of edits across a number of related articles (I don't know because I haven't investigated), but the claim that he has been quietly deleting every WP article about Deckers product lines (Ugg Australia, Teva sandals, Simple Shoes) and redirecting them to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article (my emphasis) is bizarre: he openly proposed redirecting them there almost three months ago. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
ON the photographs I take them for a living hence the camera and my lack of need in editing afterwards, I have contributed 1000+ images to Wikipedia all freely licensed. The redirects were done after Uggs Australia was deleted and redirected as a POV fork with no merge taking place, if I had any hidden agenda I wouldnt have bothered with recovering the information in that article, nor would I have left redirects and fixed double redirects. Gnangarra 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If what P&W says is true regarding overweight on certain sources and not using more neutral sources, I agree with him. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with P&W's account is that it appears biased in the other direction. Those sources are in part used because, when the trademark issues arose in Australia, naturally the Australian press covered the issue in depth. As a result a lot of articles emerged looking at the history of the style. So when looking for articles on the history, those were the ones giving the best coverage. Second, there is a number of sources in the articles specifically about Deckers boots. These include proceedings from two court cases that found for Deckers, and, I think, at least nine pro-Deckers articles in the references. Overall, the article mentions specific Australian manufacturers - in name only - three times in the entire article, with the bulk of the article being either about ugg boots in general or Deckers in specific, including with Deckers mentioned in the lead, a whole section devoted to counterfeit Deckers boots, (although I think that should be in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, where it is repeated) and a paragraph in history specifically about Deckers.
The problem is that there are a style of shoes, known as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand, that have considerable significance in those countries and are made by a large number of manufacturers. There is also a specific brand of those boots, made by Deckers, that are sold and widely known outside of Australia and New Zealand called UGGs as a trademarked term, that emerged possibly decades after the boots were manufactured in Australia by other companies under the ugg name. This article currently discusses the history, the trademark disputes, the rise of Deckers and the appearance of counterfeit Deckers boots. Add to that the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, to which P&W added large chunks from this one, and Wikipedia has an awful lot of coverage about Deckers already. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You're discussing the article as it is now. Consider how some editors have advocated changing it: removing everything about the counterfeiting, and nearly everything about trademark disputes. The Budweiser series of articles should be guiding us concerning content. K10wnsta mentioned some minor distinctions between this set of facts and that one, but they are distinctions without any real, substantive difference. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the RfC is about, then. Is it to say that the article is currently balanced, but you want an RfC to say that it should stay that way, or that it should be more on Deckers, or what is the aim?
In regard to Budweiser, it isn't really equivalent, as we're talking here about a generic term in the country of origin, while the Budweiser article makes it clear that Budweiser is not a generic term. But If you do want to compare the two, the Budweiser starts by covering history and background, and then mentions the three companies. After that it has a general discussion about the trademark dispute. This article covers history and background, (more than Budweiser), and covers the trademark dispute, then has a big section about counterfeiting one brand. I can't see a major difference, except that this article gives much more time to Deckers, and has more specific discussion related to only one brand, than Budweiser gives to the US company. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought I laid it out well in the RfC OP (original post). The lede is a critical component of any article. By the end of the article, we will lose 50-95% of readers (in my experience), and the way to keep them reading is to make the lede interesting. It doesn't need to read like a WP:DYK hook, but it shouldn't be dry, dusty and boring, either. The lede needs the "before and after" sales figures for the UGG brand to show the explosive growth in popularity of ugg boots (generic term) over the past 15 years. If you'd like, I'll try to find more current sales figures. You are encouraged to find similar figures for any Australian companies that publish them, because this isn't a Deckers article; it's about all ugg boots manufacturers, but Deckers happens to be the largest.
The lede also needs the quote from the judge about "exponential" growth. This is an interesting choice of words. Again, if you can find something similar about some Australian manufacturer, let's consider it. For guidance on how to write a lede, I've always listened to the professionals at the Columbia School of Journalism, home of Columbia Journalism Review:[22]
The effective story lead meets two requirements. It captures the essence of the event, and it cajoles the reader or listener into staying awhile.
  • "We slept last night in the enemy's camp." — By a correspondent for the Memphis Daily Appeal, after the first day of the Civil War Battle of Shiloh.
I'm not saying we should take any guidance from the "rule breakers" section, but that webpage contains a lot of great learning for WP editors. Writing the lede correctly is 90% of the real creative work in writing an article. It announces what is important or notable. And in Ugg boots, what's important and notable is the phenomonal growth in popularity of this boot style, and the many disputes that this fashion equivalent of the California Gold Rush has triggered.
The RfC should also address the desire by some editors to disembowel or completely eliminate the "Trademark dispute" section and the "Counterfeit products" section. Wherever the generic term has been used as a defense by counterfeiters and trademark infringers, it should be in this article -- whether the defense was successful (in Australia) or unsuccessful (just about everywhere else it's been tried). Again, if there are any incidents of counterfeiting that target an Australian brand such as Uggs-N-Rugs, let's consider them. My initial reaction would be to include them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
If I am following things properly, it seems there should be give and take on both sides of this issue. Perhaps it might be worth everyone trying to see things from each others viewpoint then acting accordingly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, the counterfeiting and the sales figures are not an issue for ugg boots, but for Deckers, and you have already placed the counterfeiting in that article as well as in here. It doesn't need to be in two places, any more than the trademark dispute needs to be in two places. If we use your Budweiser article as an example, issues specific to one brand should go in that brand's article, and issues that affect multiple brands, or ugg boots in general, such as the trademark dispute, should go in the general article. I have no problem with expanding the trademark section, but to be honest it feels ok as is. But I do have a problem with putting content in one article when the best place for it would be another. Note that I would say the same about Uggs-N-Rugs, should someone want to add their sales figures, or if any other issue specific to them was to arise. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Normally Bilby, I might agree with you. But in these particular court cases, the generic term was used as a defense — usually without any success. This article is all about the generic term. If any mention at all is made of the case in Australia (where the generic term defense was a success), then we also have to talk about all the other cases (where the generic term defense failed). We have to take the "bad" with the "good," from an Uggs-N-Rugs marketing perspective. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some confusion? I have no problem at all with covering the trademark dispute. By its very nature, that is an issue for all ugg boot manufacturers, fits well within this as a general article, and matches what was done at Budweiser. If there is more to cover on this I'm very happy to see it added. But company-specific issues are better handled on the company-specific pages. Counterfeiting Deckers boots and sales figures are company specific, trademarks are a general issue, both when Deckers won and when they didn't. There might be issues about weight, but that's a different concern and doesn't relate to the validity of covering the trademark debate here. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added your username to your comment, Bilby, hope you don't mind. I think we might actually be on the same page, and I'm most relieved to see that. What really concerns me is the possible removal of the Dutch decision. It could fairly be described as a counterfeiting case, but the defendant (La Cheapa) used the generic term defense, so it most definitely belongs here. The Glasgow case should also be mentioned here in significant detail with quotes, since those counterfeits were made out of fake fur; so they weren't just counterfeit UGG boots (brand name), they were also counterfeit ugg boots (generic term). I hadn't planned on introducing any other counterfeiting cases here, since the ones I've found have nothing to do with ugg boots (generic term). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article already mentions ugg boots made out of material other than sheepskin. The article is entirely about Deckers - I really think it is a bit of a stretch to say that it refers to counterfeit ugg boots just because it mentions that some were made of synthetic fur. Can you even counterfeit a style of clothing, as opposed to a brand? How about we take the counterfeit out of here and leave it in the Deckers article, and take the trademark discussion out of Deckers and leave it here? - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, any counterfeiting cases that involved the use of the generic term as a defense belong here, because this is an article about the generic term. Also, in the "Design" section we see, "Some variations of ugg style boots have also been made from kangaroo fur and leather ... Although derided as 'fake' by some in the industry,[17] ..." Source #17 is the Australian Sheepskin Association, Bilby, not the Deckers marketing department. If "some in the industry," among them the leading organization of sheepskin producers in Australia, believe them to be fake ugg boots, then it's at the very least a significant minority opinion that must receive due weight per WP:WEIGHT. And any counterfeiting case involving boots made out of fake fur therefore belongs here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the question of fake ugg boots is already covered in the article, so it has due weight. If you want, I don't see a problem with adding a line stating that the generic ugg boot defence was used in a counterfeiting case, but the reality is that the vast bulk of the counterfeit section is very much about Deckers boots, and has little relevance, as written, to ugg boots in general. It may also be viable to expand it in the future, but as there are no sources that I'm aware of covering counterfeiting other articles, placing it in Deckers would allow it to grow in that manner while retaining that article's focus. Thus, logically, I think it belongs in the Deckers article, where it can already be found as you duplicated the content there. Anyway, I'll leave it for a bit to see what others think. - Bilby (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Popping on after a bit of a vacation. I also see no point in having the counterfeiting portion in here; this is an article about the generic style, it really has no place here. Perhaps in the brand-specific article, where I think it's already mentioned. — e. ripley\talk 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved trademark disputes info out of header (article is 'Ugg boots') and into Trademark disputes section.teinesaVaii (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What's the question? P&W asked me to take a look here (in the interest of disclosure), but I'm not entirely sure what the question is that requires comment. Are we discussing COI, POV, weight, or article organization? All of the above? There are at least four distinct subjects here, possibly more: (1) ugg boots, the regional generic term for a type of Australian footware; (2) UGG boots, the international brand, and the company (UGG Australia) and parent organization (Deckers) that makes and markets them; (3) trademark litigation regarding whether the term is generic in various jurisdictions; and (4) counterfeit goods, passing off, etc. If we were to cover it all in one article, #2 is clearly the most dominant use. Perhaps not in Australia, which may deserve some special consideration as the origin - but this is English Wikipedia, not Australiapedia. Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to cover all of these in a single article, particularly not #1 and #2, because these are different companies making different products, with different histories. That discussion is being had simultaneously here, in an AfD, and on the various article talk pages - it might make sense to centralize that here. Assuming we do maintain separate articles it would make the most sense to segregate the information as much as practical. We need barely mention the brand in this article, we can just point to it with a sentence or two and a "main" template. The article about the brand need only mention the generic use in a "history" section describing the derivation of the name and product. As a final note, a court's determination that a name is generic does not necessarily make it so - judicial rulings are primary sources, not necessarily WP:RS in a complete sense. Courts don't write encyclopedias, and encyclopedias don't rule on legal matters. Rather, the court's decision is an event that affects trademark rights and future branding. When we cover a legal decision we have to say that the court ruled that X, not that X is true. That's particularly important in cases like this, where courts in different jurisdictions (applying the laws of their jurisdictions to unique facts presented in the cases there) reach different conclusions. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OT diversion II

I utterly reject the false accusation of conflict of interest within this RfC and would encourage User:Phoenix and Winslow to apologise for and withdraw same. Not that it is really anybody's business here, but I have no relationship of any sort with any manufacturer of ugg boots, and the last pair of ugg boots I ever owned disintegrated (from old age) approximately two decades before Deckers made their first ever ugg boot. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Nobody apologizes on this page for making accusations, even false ones.[23]
(2) I didn't make any accusations. I just observed that a COI on the part of some Aussie/NZ editors here is possible. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it interesting that a direct response to a claim included in the RfC is considered "off topic" if it points out the falsehood of the claim. Your failure to withdraw and apologise is also noted. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

I've just read though the article, and the version from today seems sensible and balanced. I don't think it shows favoritism or gives undue weight to Australia/NZ. However, I would like to read a bit more about the UGG company and the use of UGG boots in the US. A little bit more weight about the US market would be appropriate I think. Other than that, it's a good article. LK (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But Lawrence, "the UGG company" in the US is Deckers Outdoor Corporation, which has its own article. The use in the US of UGG boots (and perhaps also of other boots that, if they were only in Australia, might also be called ugg boots)? Well, people put them on, walk around in them, take them off.... What do you have in mind, actual market research about who wears them and when? (My guess is that there's be nothing between proprietary market research at the one extreme and impressionistic twaddle in the fashion pages of newspapers at the other, but I could be wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Guidance for content of this article should be provided by sales figures "then and now," and of course survey results from prospective customers, the "proprietary market research" that the judge found to be reliable in the California case. I've recently linked a good mainstream news article from CNN at the UGG Australia AfD page. It isn't "impressionistic twaddle [from] the fashion pages." Sure, Deckers has its own article — but as the leading manufacturer of ugg boots (generic term), it needs to be covered here as well. I agree with Lawrence. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
UGG and 'ugg-type' boots are very popular in the US. A little bit less about the history and controversy, and a little bit more about UGG boots in the contemporary fashion world surely not be out of place? I'm not suggesting a major rewrite, I'm just suggesting that some more information could be added about the US and world markets. LK (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. Either this is exclusively about AU/NZ or not. If it is not then we have to talk about Deckers outside of the TM issue.--Factchk (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Scrolling through the RfC listings, I saw you guys are still at it here, but reading through the comments to this point, I don't see much to alter the opinion I offered last month. However, I am a bit surprised Phoenix is still interpreting sales figures as having some bearing on weight, as that policy is not at all intended to apply to the relative success or failure of commercial interests versus generic things.

That being said, I have to agree with Phoenix (if I'm interpreting his concern correctly) that the article should not mention Blue Mountains Ugg Boots or Mortels Sheepskin Factory (even if neither company still exists). Furthermore, given the contentious nature of the matter, I don't think statements (re: synthetic ugg boots) like '...their lower price made them appealing to large retail chains such as Myer' should be included here.

Approaching this fresh after a couple weeks away from it, I was struck by another possible compromise which I'll suggest here for interested parties to consume in flame:

Why don't we just have 'ugg boots' default to a disambiguation page with the wiktionary definition and a pair of links (don't read anything into the order, I listed them alphabetically) like:

  • Ugg Australia, international brand name Ugg boots manufactured by Deckers
  • Ugg style boots, generic form sheepskin footwear manufactured in Australia

The brunt of the info from this page could be placed on the Ugg style boots page and the Decker's brand could be properly covered on it's corresponding page. Information about the trademark dispute could be covered on...well, we could burn that bridge when we get to it. Just a thought.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in regard to Mortels Sheepskin Factory and Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, I'm not sure why neither should be mentioned at all, given they are both ugg boot manufacturers. But that aside, the mention is because both companies were raised in the Australian trademark case as the two earliest identified examples of ugg boots being manufactured, and thus are listed in the history section on those grounds. Most companies don't warrant mentioning, but they are included because they provide some sort of date for ugg boot production. That said, if it is a problem, I guess we could just not mention the company names. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it's sort of a compromise. I mean, the Aussie court document pretty clearly establishes that ugg boots were a generic thing going back a hundred years, but the companies that established that fact aren't really relevant. What's important is that the fact is established. In other words, if they're going to be permitted to stay in the article, it may validate Phoenix's weight argument, because it becomes a matter of commercial interest vs. commercial interest (as opposed to commercial interest vs. generic thing).
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I am a bit concerned about the idea of removing all mentions of companies who aren't Decker's, although I'm not sure that's what P&W is arguing for. The issue here is simply how best to describe the pre-1970's market. At the moment that's handled by pointing to the two companies mentioned in RS's who claim to have made ugg boots pre 1970. It could be reworded to say something like:
While it is not clear as to the exact date when ugg boots were first manufactured, there is evidence suggesting that they were being produced in Australia from 1933.[4]
(Wording could, of course, be improved). The main aim here is not so much to establish that it was a generic term, but to historically establish a date for manufacturing, so if removing the names of the companies will help then I don't have a major problem with that, (just a bit of confusion as to why). However, if we take this path, we may also need to consider trimming back the coverage of Decker's in the third paragraph of the History section. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I should add that some of that wouldn't be removed as such, just moved to LK's proposed section of uggs and the fashion industry. - Bilby (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, aside from brief mention in the section detailing the trademark dispute, I've been advocating removal of all mention of specific commercial interests from the core article body. If the article is addressing the generic footwear, then they have no place in it. The only way we can be sure it's a successful compromise, however, is if everyone is equally unhappy with it.  ;-)
Now, I have an important question for all the involved editors here:
Would everyone agree that the designer market for ugg boots was effectively established by Ugg Australia?
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
To be absolutely honest, I don't know. I'd been assuming it was, and I have no question that UGG Australia was the major player. But that leaves open the possibility that there were other players, and I simply don't know the way the market developed. - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional language

Please can we not use text like "ugg boots have gained rapidly in popularity" anywhere in the article, and particularly not in the lead (diff). Text sounding like marketspeak is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The second sentence ("The company reported sales of US$14.5 million worth of ugg boots in 1995, and US$689 million in 2008") provides information that the reader can interpret without editorial assistance. However, it is not very encyclopedic in the lead. First of all, what company? Why mention some company here? Is this article about a boot or a company? Are the figures mentioned small or large on a worldwide stage? Encyclopedic information would involve a summary from an independent reliable source indicating the importance of Ugg boots in terms of sales of similar products (although the lead of this article does not appear the appropriate place for such details to me). Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please can we not use text like "ugg boots have gained rapidly in popularity" anywhere in the article, and particularly not in the lead ... Why not? This style of boot has grown tremendously in popularity in the past 15 years. That fact is very notable. Here's the lede for Smart phone: "[I]n 2010 over 45.5 million people in the United States owned smartphones and it is the fastest growing segment of the mobile phone market ..."[24]
Here's the lede for Laptop: "Portable computers ... were originally considered to be a small niche market .... As portable computers became smaller, lighter, and cheaper and as screens became larger and of better quality, laptops became very widely used for all purposes."[25] Clearly, when a type of product grows very rapidly in popularity, it's notable enough to go in the lede. And when discussing the rapid growth in sales, we haven't "mentioned some company here" by name in the lede. If figures are available somewhere for the ugg boot industry as a whole, show me your source and we'll use it instead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
That whole bit about sales and the founding of UGG needs to go in my opinion. It's confusing the main point of the article having it in the lead like that.70.189.214.56 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree wholesale with John on both points (the reference to sales figures with no mention of who's doing the selling is confusing at best and irrelevant at worst) and the puffery about how popular Uggs are doesn't belong in the lead, so I've removed them both. I also removed all the information about how great Deckers is at marketing Uggs later in the article because it doesn't belong here. Add it to the Deckers article. Also, P&W, I've seen you use this rationale before so let me just say this: Wikipedia articles aren't templates. While comparisons are sometimes informative, they don't rise to the level of court precedent, so just because one article treats a subject one way does not mean another article must or even should use the same treatment. — e. ripley\talk 02:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So far in this section, I see two people supporting the effort to rip out portions of the article (John and Ripley), and one opposed. But elsewhere on this Talk page, kindly review the previous comments by Lawrencekhoo, Hapamama, Factchk, IainUK and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (LAEC). They liked the article before you started ripping portions out of it. Your efforts are not supported by a consensus. Kindly demonstrate that you have a consensus before ripping portions out. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Two of the editors you have listed seem to have little or no interest in Wikipedia other than in ugg boots ([26], [27]), and another seems to have arrived as a result of a request on your part ([28]). I am sure that they are genuine in their opinions, but I think K10wnsta's suggestion, coming as it does from a disinterested observer, is the best solution for this article. This article is about the generic item, which long predates Deckers' involvement in their manufacture; which last may well also be notable but belongs in its own article. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
... belongs in its own article. Is there any WP policy or guideline that you can use to support this claim, besides WP:IDON'TLIKEIT? Feel free to start a new article about Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, where Deckers can be presented as the chump that lost the Australian trademark case, and nothing more. This article covers the sale of ugg boots in the entire world, and Deckers is by far the leading manufacturer of ugg boots worldwide. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
But there's already a whole article about UGG Australia. Why do they need to be so heavily mentioned in this one too? The item in question is significant enough to warrant a generic article. If "Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand" is created then either this entry or the UGG Australia entry should be marked for deletion. The Deckers trademark (and most particularly talk about their sales) stuff should be stripped from this and a disambiguation added "For the brand name see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGG_AustraliaMandurahmike (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Mike, maybe the best solution would be to rename this article as Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand, revert it to the July 31 version where the only mention of Deckers is as the chump that lost the Australian trademark decision, and redirect the Ugg boots term to UGG Australia. How does that sound? Because in the rest of the world, the story of Ugg boots is almost entirely the story of Deckers Outdoor Corporation and UGG Australia, and the many attempts to infringe on their trademarks and counterfeit their products. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles aren't templates. While comparisons are sometimes informative, they don't rise to the level of court precedent, so just because one article treats a subject one way does not mean another article must or even should use the same treatment. I should respond directly to this as well. What other Wikipedians have done in similar articles under very similar circumstances is instructive. It tells us about the consensus that would be offered by other Wikipedians: the ones who wrote those ledes, and discussed them on those articles' Talk pages. While not chiseled in granite like the "court precedent" you've compared them with, they should give us some guidance, wouldn't you agree?
with no mention of who's doing the selling is confusing at best and irrelevant at worst.' I've now mentioned Ugg Holdings, Inc. to avoid any confusion. When a type of products (such as Smart phones, Laptops or Ugg boots) grows rapidly in popularity, it's noteworthy. It's notable enough to put in the lede. I can quickly find six or eight mainstream, reliable sources to confirm that it's notable, and has been found to be notable by neutral, reliable newspapers and news services. Remember WP:WEIGHT. Weight is determined not only by amount of article space, but also placement and juxtaposition of sentences. WP:WEIGHT is policy and we can't ignore it, not even with consensus. Policy reflects the considered opinion and consensus of the over 1 million editors of the entire Wikipedia project.
and the puffery about how popular Uggs are doesn't belong in the lead. It isn't puffery, it's well-documented fact in multiple reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT must be apportioned based on the number of reliable sources that report it. If you need six reliable sources, or eight, or twelve to prove sufficiently that Deckers' growth in sales is so remarkable that it belongs in the lede, just let me know and I'll Google the combination "UGG ... Deckers ... sales ... growth." So how many do you need? Six? Twelve? Would 20 be enough? Say the word, Ripley, and you'll have abundant reliable sources. Then we can measure WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's a start:
How many more would you like? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant to my main point, which is that the information simply doesn't belong in the lead of this article. — e. ripley\talk 02:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It's relevant because WP:WEIGHT requires that material in an article must be apportioned according to its representation in reliable sources. This apportionment of weight is reflected in "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." [emphasis added] Because the enormous growth in popularity of the ugg boots style is reported in so many reliable sources, giving it proper WP:WEIGHT means mentioning it in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead of this entry is a mess as it currently stands. This doesn't seem to know if it's an article about a generic object or a brandname and the whole thing reads like it. Given that this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGG_Australia - exists, why not convert this more or less fully into an article about the generic and have the other one be about the brand and its sales/popularity etc? By all means keep the bit about the trademark dispute further into the aricle, but right now the lead is dominated by stuff about UGG Australia, their sales and trademark claims. Nearly 70% of the lead paras are about UGG (brand).Mandurahmike (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we're in the middle of a discussion about this on the Talk page, please show us all that you have consensus for your change before you make it. Currently, as I read it, there are six editors opposed to such a change: Lawrencekhoo, Hapamama, Factchk, IainUK, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (LAEC) and me. Sure, 70% of the lede is about Deckers, because about 95% of worldwide sales of ugg boots (yes, the generic term) are UGG boots (yes, the brand). It's like trying to write an article about the DVD without mentioning Sony (yes, there it is in the lede of the DVD article), or an article about the MP3 player without mentioning the Apple iPod (golly, the very first photo in the article is a captioned photo of an Apple iPod, identifying it as such), or an article about 4G cellular wireless standards without any mention of Samsung (oh look, the only photo in the article is a photo of a Samsung LTE modem, again captioned as such and with the Samsung logo clearly visible). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


I have been following this debate for a number of years now and would like to make the following observations and suggestions. 1. There is no doubt that the Australian manufacturers have been actively fighting Deckers in this section and using it for self promotion. 2. There is also no doubt that the word UGG or ugg can be and has been used as a marketing tool on thousands of websites to help sell “Generic ugg boots”. 3. Deckers do own trademarks in almost every area outside of Australia and New Zealand and have now defended their marks in several countries in various courts of law. 4. Deckers have the vast majority of worldwide sales and are responsible for the vast increase in these boots sales due to their marketing efforts. 5. Since Deckers sales have increased so much in recent years, dozens if not hundreds of companies and individuals have jumped on the bandwagon and used the internet to tout that they are selling “real Ugg boots from Australia”. In doing so they are breaking international trademark laws and put their poor customers in risk of having their order confiscated when it arrives in the US, Europe etc. 6. None of these Australian companies complaining about the name can legally sell generic “ugg boots” in any store (wholesale) outside of Australia if the word ugg is on the product or packaging. 7. While Deckers has considerable internet sales, it is only a very small portion of their overall sales. Considering that Deckers dominate this category and that, while their sales are impressive, the larger portion of sales come from their wholesale business which doubles at retail. Therefore, the market share of this style of boots for Deckers is by far more than all the websites selling these boots and complaining about what is now a brand that is known all over the world.

While I agree about having a smaller section dedicated to “Ugg boots from Australian and new Zealand”, there is massive and overwhelming use of the truly generic term “Sheepskin Boots”. This term is used by Deckers to generically describe this style and by most of these Australian companies that are fighting this loosing battle over Deckers trademarks. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of legitimate “Brands” that both wholesale and retail sheepskin boots all over the world including Australian and New Zealand. These brands include, EMU, Koolaburra, Bearpaw, Aussie Dogs, Warmbat, Green Lizard, Love from Australia, Koalabi etc, etc. I would dare to speculate that their sales are considerably more than the opportunistic internet retailers that are still bitching and moaning about the name ugg.

One look at the Ugg N Rugs operation would confirm that many of these are nothing more than a small cottage industry that is pissed off that they have missed the boat and that many of their boots are returned by customers who actually wanted Deckers UGG boots. Look at their disclaimers in their sites to confirm this.

In summary, I hope that a the editors will create a “Sheepskin Boots” section as it seems unfair for all these other legitimate Brands to be labeled as “Ugg boots” or “Ugg like” as it unfairly places Deckers in the position of the original and the others as copies. This seems like a fair compromise and allows any other individuals or companies to go out and sell their goods through their own merit and not by falsely misleading the consumers who are free to choose other legitimate sheepskin boot brands, Deckers included, without being confused over what this name means here or there. --Illume1999 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Trademark Dispute Hatnote

There are some serious problems with the content and placement of this statement, placed at the fore of the Trademark Section:

The UGG trademark has been the subject of dispute in several countries. As a result the term "ugg" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia. Thus Australian and New Zealand manufacturers continue to market ugg-style sheepskin boots under their own brands using the word "ugg."[21] Outside Australia and New Zealand, the UGG (written in capital letters) brand of ugg boots is a registered trademark of Deckers Outdoor Corporation.”

First of all, the statement that the term “ugg” has been removed from the registry isn’t true. I assume this is attempting to refer to the 2006 decision which removed a trademark “UGH-BOOTS” for non-use. Deckers UGG Australia mark is still on the books and valid in Australia (IP Australia Reg. 785466). Furthermore that mark is not only used for sheepskin boots but for all types of footwear, including leather shoes, sandals and boots, knit boots, apparel, handbags and accessories.

If I understand it correctly, the intent of inserting this statement was to attempt to distinguish the usage of the term in AU/NZ from its usage internationally. When a word has 2 meanings, it is best to indicate the 2 meanings up front and then discuss each meaning in more detail below. A statement that accurately describes the purpose of the article belongs in the main lead. Why on earth is it relegated to the bottom of the article? Put it where it belongs. What is the point of clarifying the meaning of the word in the middle of the entry? The entry should be at the top of the article and should be: “In Australia and New Zealand, “ugg boot” is a type of sheepskin footwear. In the rest of the world, UGG is a trademark for footwear, apparel, handbags and accessories.”--Factchk (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to promote the trademark interests of a company. I imagine the companies concerned can fund their own websites and explain the details of their trademarks, and ensure that other organizations do not infringe; they should not use Wikipedia for their campaign. This article is about a particular style of boot and the interests of a company are not relevant in the lead. Any errors in the article should, of course, be corrected with a reliable source (although undue detail should be omitted). Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You're entitled to that opinion, John, but several other editors on this page clearly disagree. Wikipedia policy also disagrees with you. This article does not promote the trademark interests of a company. If it did, it would exclusively describe the word "UGG" as a trademark, and conceal the fact that in Australia and New Zealand, it is a generic term. This article reports the facts, both neutrally and dispassionately. It is a fact that 90-95% of the worldwide sales of ugg boots are made by one company. Avoiding any discussion of that company, or focusing only on the one or two cases where its tiny Australian competitors were victorious, would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The lede needs to be substantially expanded per WP:LEAD, but the body of the article is good. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
So John says Wikipedia is not here to promote the interests of Deckers yet you disagree, Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this. If you want to promote Deckers do it at your own expense on your own websites, if you dont like Wikipedia having an article on Ugg boots that isnt about Deckers then do what Deckers has always done, take us to court and try to get it changed. Gnangarra 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for fighting battles, no matter how worthy the cause. The correct attitude on this page is that we do not care about matters like "where its tiny Australian competitors were victorious" because this is not a legal journal documenting the struggles of a company against its competitors, both legal and illegal (counterfeiters). If you want an article on such matters, please create it under an appropriate title and argue the case for the article's retention based on its notability (are there good sources showing that the legal struggles are of general encyclopedic interest?). The current situation is most unsatisfactory because this article is kept due to the notability of this style of boot, and it is unreasonable to convert the article to some kind of legal defense or marketing promotion.
The persistence shown by those promoting the trademark interests of a company may triumph in the short term because disinterested editors cannot spend an hour every week cleaning out the puffery, but in a year some new editors will arrive and implement Wikipedia's style by eliminating all promotional verbage. It would be desirable for that to happen sooner rather than later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
What you're saying John is pretty obvious but needed saying. In essence the uninvolved volunteer from the RFC agrees with this too, yet still we have commercial interests being pushed here in an effort to override Wikipedia policy (eg. WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV). Is it possible to create some kind of formal consensus to establish a baseline and avoid future destabilisation of the article from commercial interests? Donama (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Again it is not promoting a brand to state plainly that there are different usages. I believe this sentence was inserted as an attempt to do that, however it is inaccurate and misplaced. How does it promote anything to clear up factually what a term is and is not? Since the usage of "ugg" in reference to anything other than a brand is limited to AU/NZ we have to clarify the purpose of this article from the start.
Moreover, that information must be correct and accurate. We need to state facts plainly and simply and as constructed now, the article fails to do so.--Factchk (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Factchk, please propose an edit that would be factually correct. We need to replace the following sentence:

As a result the term "ugg" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia.

Please draft another sentence that replaces it, provide a reliable source to support it, and we'll ask an admin to make the edit. That's how it has to be done, because the article is protected. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@Factchk: There is a dispute about whether certain kinds of edits are undue promotion, and out of place in this article. Your arguments would be more convincing if you were not a single purpose acount with an interest in inserting trademark issues in this article. As I have said before, any errors should be corrected (or the text omitted if undue), and any text which unduly promotes competitors should be ruthlessly removed, in the same way that we should remove any attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the name of a company or its brands. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
John, you've made that argument many, many times and the rebuttal has also been successfully made many, many times. Factchk is not editing the mainspace. If he has a COI, the way around it is for him to participate only on the Talk page. Even with a COI, he has every right to participate here, and recommend edits on this Talk page. Getting the facts straight about which trademark was voided in Australia is perfectly appropriate, as you have just admitted. Obeying WP:WEIGHT is not an attempt to promote a brand, but to obey Wikipedia policy. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, one of the most fundamental policies at Wikipedia. Right now, the article satisfies WP:NPOV and you are suggesting a return to institutional POV-pushing, John. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"Factchk is not editing the mainspace." In fact he/she has edited the article numerous times; I just looked at his/her contributions list and he/she has made over 20 edits to the Ugg boots article, just on the first page. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's ancient history, Dave, he has STOPPED editing the mainspace quite a long time ago, in response to claims that he has a COI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It wasnt claims of COI it was a self admission of COI during a request for the unblocking of one of his sockpuppets. Gnangarra 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Information from an independent secondary source

Having had half an hour spare today I had a hunt around the library and found this information:

"Not content with stubbies, Australia was responsible for introducing another oddity to the New Zealand wardrobe in the 1970s. According to the Australian Magazine (July 10-20, 1997), in 1965 John Arnold of Adelaide came up with the idea of lambskin boots for winter surfers. The appropriately named ugh boot soon spread to Sydney, selling 1500 pairs a week. Before long it had reached New Zealand, and diversified from the surfing fraternity to become a cliché of suburban style. In recognition, New Zealand Post saw fit to include the ug (no 'h' here) boot in its Kiwiana stamp series in the year 2000."

p. 39, "The Way We Wore: the clothes New Zealanders have loved", Richard Wolfe, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2001.

No mention whatsoever of a trademark here, and something like 30 years before Deckers ever made an ugg boot (under any spelling). I'd be interested if anyone had access to the original Australian Magazine article as well. This also deals to the claim that there is a dispute between Australia and New Zealand about the boots' origin (I've never heard of them being claimed by New Zealand as one of this country's own inventions).Daveosaurus (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Improvement of the article

First I think it would be good to get one fact straight. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform: [29] .

Going over the article as it stands, section by section, I notice:

Article title and hatnote: There is no reason whatsoever that the article title would need to change if it is solely concerned with the generic item of footwear, even assuming that it the generic item of footwear only exists in two countries (and that is not a safe assumption to make, as explained later). As an example, cassowaries only exist in Australia and New Guinea. However, the Wikipedia article for these birds is Cassowary, not Cassowaries in Australia and New Guinea. Note that at [30] , it is stated “...over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed” and “Remember that concise titles are generally preferred.” It is also stated that “If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification.” As ugg boots (the generic article) existed under that name long before the granting of any trademarks for similar names, they are obviously the primary topic. It is to be noted here that a Wikipedia article for the trademarked boots already exists at UGG Australia, a name sufficiently different from the name of the generic article that there should be no possibility of confusion, and all that would be needed is a hatnote in case any editors land at the wrong article by mistake. The hatnote currently on the page is good, and although logically a corresponding hatnote should be placed at UGG Australia, a minor correction of that article (which at the moment seems to studiously avoid referring to the manufacturer’s ugg boots as ugg boots) would be all that is really necessary.

Lead: The first paragraph is good, concise and accurate. The second paragraph is unncessary, dealing with a peripheral issue more thoroughly covered in an article where it is of more than peripheral relevance.

History section: This could do with some more specific references and (in its latter sections) less advertising material. While it is relevant that Deckers manufacture a brand of ugg boots, their sales figures are less relevant.

Design section: This is fairly good as it stands, but could perhaps do with expansion.

Trademark dispute section: As this takes up about half the article it is far too long, especially considering it is no more relevant to an encyclopaedic article than the animal welfare considerations in the subsequent section, and is exhaustively covered at the cited main article, UGG Australia, where it is of more relevance than it is to Ugg boots. The section should be pruned drastically to a summary of the main article at UGG Australia.

Concern for animals: This is also of only peripheral relevance to the boots themselves. The first paragraph is unsourced and inconsistent (the “animal liberation movement” of the first sentence may be the “group” of the second, but this is nowhere made clear). The second paragraph seems salvageable, even though its only sources are an article which looks more designed to make Pamela Anderson look silly than to explain her animal welfare views, and is from a source which is well known for its economy with the truth; and what seems to be an article in an on-line college newspaper.

Lastly, on the trademark defence issue: So far, I’ve seen references to the trademark having been defended in the courts of four countries: successfully in the United States and the Netherlands, and unsuccessfully in New Zealand and Australia (their place of origin). Until such time as the courts of any other countries make rulings, any extrapolation to bolster those numbers would be at best original research, or even synthesis: [31] . So it is totally inappropriate to claim that any readers, other than the approximately five per cent of the world’s population who live in the United States or the Netherlands, have had such a decision made by their judiciary on their behalf. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cassowary" is a completely bogus example. To demonstrate how bogus it is, there would need to be a brand of commercially produced birds, sold as pets everywhere else in the world, called the Cassowary®. An enterprising bird breeder from Australia would need to take a few of them to California, sell them as pets, start breeding them in California, and trademark the word in 25 countries, then sell his company to a larger American bird-breeding corporation, which would then need to embark on a massive brand awareness and marketing campaign, and extend the trademark registration to over 100 countries. The Cassowary® would then need to be endorsed by such influential celebrities as Oprah Winfrey, Kate Hudson and Sarah Jessica Parker. The Cassowary® would need to appear through product placement in more than a dozen popular films and TV series in the U.S., with brand awareness thereby spreading throughout the world. And the English Wikipedia would therefore need to carefully distinguish between the wild, native cassowary bird that lives in Australia, and the millions of domesticated Cassowary® birds that live in upscale homes and luxury condos throughout the U.S., Europe and Japan.
It is to be noted here that a Wikipedia article for the trademarked boots already exists at UGG Australia, a name sufficiently different from the name of the generic article that there should be no possibility of confusion ... Sorry, but the term "UGG Australia" refers to the company. In almost all countries, the registered trademark is UGG®. A few countries also have UGG Australia® as a trademark, but the most common trademark by far is UGG®. There is an enormous likelihood of confusion when talking about the brand UGG®, which refers principally to boots. Are we talking about "ugg boots," or "UGG® boots"? It's hard to tell, especially when "®" is silent when spoken, and rarely used when written; and UGG, when written, is almost always written as "Ugg." It's a disambiguation nightmare, Dave.
Lead: The first paragraph is good, concise and accurate. The second paragraph is unncessary ... What part of WP:LEAD don't you understand, Dave?
Trademark dispute section: As this takes up about half the article it is far too long ... Please take a good, long look at the Budweiser article, Dave. That article is stable because the trademark disputes were ironed out long before there was a thing called Wikipedia. We should strive to emulate it. The first half is disambiguation, and describes what the generic term means. The second half describes the trademark disputes. Our situation differs because there are a lot more reliable sources about the UGG trademark disputes, and WP:WEIGHT requires us to apportion space in the article based on representation in those reliable sources worldwide, not on what you believe and understand from your chats with your friends and neighbors in New Zealand, Dave.
So it is totally inappropriate to claim that any readers, other than ... the United States or the Netherlands, have had such a decision made by their judiciary on their behalf. Wrong again, Dave. We have reliable sources showing that "ugg boots" is used as a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. And we have no reliable sources showing its use as a generic term by anyone anywhere else in the world, besides lawyers who are hired by counterfeiters and trademark infringers. It isn't just the U.S. and the Netherlands, Dave. There have also been trademark disputes in other countries, including Singapore[32] and China,[33] where 17% of the world's population lives, and the United Kingdom,[34] where three people were actually thrown in prison for contempt — for continuing to infringe the trademark on a massive scale, after a court order to stop. In each and every case, Deckers has won; in each and every case, advocates of the generic term have failed and have been punished severely. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would turn out differently anywhere else, except Australia and New Zealand. The only countries where the generic term has prevailed are Australia and New Zealand.
I'm truly sorry, Dave. But you represent the 0.4% of the world's population that lives in Australia and New Zealand. The other 99.6% have the word "UGG" trademarked. The other 99.6% experience celebrity endorsements, product placements in films and TV shows, and a bombardment of strategically placed advertising. You're shoveling sand against the tsunami here, Dave. Give it up. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That could have been better said. However, I think the trademark section is important, as it is an important aspect of ugg boot history wherever one stands. That said, I do think that the current way it is broken down emphasises the US and Dutch court cases over the Australian one. While the US case is important, as it adds a counterpoint to the Australian one, the Australian case is the one with all the discussion in the media. The Dutch case is a bigger problem, though, as it is relatively minor compared to the other two, and I still feel it is only of limited value in that section as it is primarily about counterfeiting, with the "generic" argument being used as a poor defence. Thus the extended quotation gives it greater weight than it warrants within that section. - Bilby (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that we've focused for too long on the Australian press, which understandably slants the coverage of the subject in a particular way, and on one article in The Independent (UK) which is also heavily slanted in favor of the Australian POV. There's a lot of other press out there that the Aussies may find inconvenient, and my postings on this page have only scratched the surface, Bilby. For example, you believe the Dutch decision to be "relatively minor" and "of limited value," but on the mainland of Europe, several reliable sources clearly disagree. This decision was big fashion news there.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] (Some of these news stories and all three of the court opinions were "mirrored" on several other Dutch websites.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I should add - the reason why the US case seems to have more weight that the Australian one is the use of the heading "Trademark disputes in U.S. and Europe". It makes the Australian case appear to be just background to the US one, which is incorrect. If that section title was removed, and the Dutch case limited to a sentence or two, I think the balance would be better. - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point, due to the many citations of Dutch media above, I think you'll agree that if "the Dutch case [is] limited to a sentence or two," it would show a bias in favor English language sources. For years, this article showed a very clear bias in favor of Australian sources (and one British source that was favorable to the Australians). At long last, this article is approaching full compliance with WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I can come up with many more articles - in Australian and international press - about the Australian case, and most (all?) of those Dutch examples aren't even general press, so much as specialised legal sites. But that's not the point. The point here is that the Dutch case, with an expansive quote currently in the article, is predominately about counterfeiting. This is a valid case and should be discussed on Wikipedia, but the trademark dispute section is not about counterfeiting, but the use of the generic term. The generic term issue made a showing in the Dutch case, and warrants a mention, but was a minor part of a case primarily about the passing off of a product as a Decker's boot. Thus only a small part of that case is related to the trademark situation, and the bulk is a separate issue that should be treated accordingly - and would be best treated on the Decker's or UGG Australia articles. This article should be about ugg boots in general, and thus should cover Deckers where that is relevant to a general discussion, and I agree that it warrants solid coverage. But Deckers specific material should go in a Deckers specific article, of which there are already two. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Bilby, I respectfully suggest that in the Dutch case, the fact that counterfeit UGG boots were made by a Melbourne, Australia manufacturer (probably Jumbo Ugg) who actively marketed them in Europe is of enormous significance for this article. The fact that the generic term defense (previously used only in Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) was used in the Dutch case is also of enormous significance for this article. The Australian press (plus the very sympathetic article in The Independent, together described hereafter as the "pro-Aussie press") occupied almost the entire Ugg boots article for years. Even with the current allocation of space, the pro-Aussie press still occupies the entire first half of the article. The Dutch case occupies only one paragraph plus a blockquote, in the second half of the article. Remember that weight is apportioned not just by the amount of space, but also by prominence of placement, and the first half of the article is very prominent placement. The pro-Aussie press is still receiving a very generous apportionment of space and placement per WP:WEIGHT.
Furthermore, "most of those Dutch examples" don't simply reprint the court orders. There are legal news sites that cover new developments in intellectual property law. There are also fashion sites. We're not talking about some obscure, tiny little parcel of the human experience, such as origami or stamp collecting. We're talking about fashion and the law. As far as I can tell, there are no women at all participating on this page except Hapamama. There are a lot of women who find fashion-related subjects very fascinating. Hapamama represents the concerns of half of the English Wikipedia's readers. The legal battles are also of interest. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we're never going to agree on this, I'm afraid. In regard to the first half of the article, it covers two topics. The first is the history of ugg boots. As this history is about how they were invented in Australia, saying that this is pro-Australia is an odd reading. It also has extensive material on Decker's, covering, by name, celebrities who endorsed their products - if anything comes out of reading that section it is a positive view of Decker's. Nevertheless, I'd be open to a discussion at the way that section should be written. The second topic, on the design, is completely independent of everyone.
In regard to the Dutch case, my point remains the same. It is worth mentioning. But the issue worth mentioning is that the argument that "ugg" is a generic term was used as a defence in the case. The rest of the material - especially the extensive quote - is irrelevant to that particular issue. It is relevant to the counterfeiting of UGG Australia boots, of course, and still warrants coverage somewhere, but not in this particular part of the article.
Perhaps, though, we need to look to some means of dispute resolution, as this doesn't seem to be progressing. We're just making the same points back and forth. - Bilby (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Third Opinion and the RfC were necessary steps in the dispute resolution process. Next is mediation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, as you say, the fact that we are never going to agree with P&W is why I have dropped out of this discussion. I have said my piece and I pretty much completely agree with Dave above. We've got an entry for Ugg Australia. This should primarily be a concise article about the generic object without being full of Deckers disclaimers about who thinks what about the ownership of the name.Mandurahmike (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that mediation would be inappropriate, considering that the balance of opinion here runs against P&W's vision for this page. A better solution would be for P&W to accept this obvious consensus, and focus his energies on something else, in my opinion. — e. ripley\talk 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
←

→ It appears to me that opinion is about 50/50 on this page. Hapamama, Factchk, IainUK and LAEC have supported me. Ripley, the reason I'm not caving in is that you don't have consensus; and that consensus, even if you had it, can't defy Wikipedia policy. Mediation would help you see that. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Phoenix in his argument. I also feel that it is important that a woman's voice is heard as P&W stated above. I want to add how there have also been many arbitrations against counterfeiters use of Deckers' trademark UGG in their domain name. When a consumer types in the word UGG into search engine they are looking for an UGG Australia product and because people view UGG as a brand when they see this word in a domain name they believe they are buying the true article instead they receive an counterfeit product. [43] (Hapamama (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC))
I don't agree with P&W's argument. And why is it important that a woman's voice is heard? If it is then hear me. When I type Ugg into a search engine I'm looking for all my possible options for buying lovely lambswool boots. And luckily that doesn't mean I'm limited to just one brand. Donama (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If you type in UGG then you find sites that are posing for UGG Australia and are poaching their popularity. They are purposefully using this brandname to trick people into buying their counterfeit product. They copy the official site, images and media while using lower prices to get people to buy their poorly made boots that could be infringing on environmental, and human rights laws. If you want options you will not find them with a search using UGG. If you want options then you should search for lambswool boots. (Hapamama (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC))
Many site are legally using the term Ugg, they are not counterfeit, they are not tricking people, they are not infringing on enviromental rights nor are they infringing on human rights(maybe if they're making them China, Phillipines, Vietnam they could be). And whats more such counterfieting of UGG Australia brand is only relevent to UGG Australia and Deckers it has nothing to do with generic "Ugg boots". This article is an encyclapeadic article about the style of boot not solely about the product manufactured/marketed by Deckers(note:that doesnt mean excluding coverage of either either). Such sweeping accusations and claims only shows that mediation is pointless because some people have no intention of making an honest attempt to resolve this dispute, nor will they voluntary abide by any resolution. Gnangarra 13:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The term ugg is only generic in Australia, while in the rest of the world it is the name of a brand of products. Many sites may be using the term properly in Australia, but the term is trademarked by Decker's and can not be used in a domain name in the rest of the world. People should be aware of this, so they are not tricked into buying counterfeit goods. It is a simple statement, not sweeping generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapamama (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. This is not Wikipedia's problem. Or mine. If I want to buy generic brand ugg boots that's my prerogative. Donama (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hapamama, you certainly have a remarkable list of contributions! It's a rare contributor whose very first edit is to start a discussion page for an AfD. Anyway, you say If you type in UGG then you find sites that are posing for [sic] UGG Australia and are poaching their popularity. You don't surprise me at all. That's the joy of search engines: you get all sorts of crap hits. (And if you think Google is bad, try this outfit for, say, "obama".) When I -- in Japan, as it happens -- google for "ugg", my top hit happens to be snugaustraliauggboots.com.au, many (all?) of whose pages clearly tell the reader Please note, we are not affiliated in any way with the Deckers Outdoor Corporation and their "Ugg Australia" brand. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I've submitted the article for formal mediation here and I've named Gnangarra, Factchk, Bilby, Hoary and myself as the main participants. Others are also welcome to participate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference IPAustralia2006-01-16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugg_boots/Archive_5&oldid=1146464367"