Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a GA review on this article North8000 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

Extended content

Regarding the sentence "In 2004, Deckers sent cease and desist letters to a number of Australian and USA based manufacturers, including Mortels Sheepskin Factory, preventing them from selling uggs on eBay or from using the word in domain names" did the letter actually prevent them from doing those things? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC) After my first couple of reads my impression is that it might be a bit too "instructive" in certain areas without sourcing. For example, summary of law. My approach on this will be just to ask for cites (or discussion) a a few sentences that seem a particular "reach" in this respect. The following sentences seem to be a major statement (and possibly a reach) but are not cited: The Lanham Act is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States however, it does not address generic usage in foreign countries. The Doctrine of foreign equivalents guideline serves this purpose. Under the doctrine of "foreign equivalents" a term used in another country that is considered generic in that country cannot be imported into the United States and used as a trademark. The doctrine is supported by two rationales: Can you put cites on those? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Comment The entire section on Trademark law in the United States is a WP:SYNTHESIS argument lacking any cited secondary sources. It is one editor's interpretation of US Trademark laws relevance to UGG boots trademark - using selective examples such as an Anheuser-Busch decision to make their point. A simple link to the main article Lanham Act would suffice, if needed. But in its present form, it reads as if Wikipedia is trying to make a case *against* Deckers defense of their UGG trademark. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the post. I had not yet done that level of analysis.....I was starting with the uncited items. BTW all of the normal content rules /processes for articles apply, aside from the GA review. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Those "selective examples" are specifically cited in the Deckers Vs Koolaburra case as is almost all the text you call "one editor's interpretation." Wayne (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The examples are "selective" in that they have been "selected" from the court record, a primary source. You could see why we'd have a problem with that, since anyone could pore through court documents and highlight only those things they thought relevant. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. The present section, which is essentially an analysis of how the Lanham Act supports the defendant's claims needs to be attributed, e.g. "Author X wrote that legal precedents introduced during the hearing, such as the Anheuser-Busch decision, clearly state that...." etc. Hope this helps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) "UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al" can be used as a secondary source? Wayne (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) It's a a primary source document full of claims and counter claims, only a few of which you've chosen to highlight. You can see the problem with that. Plus it's only one case - among many that have been brought to court with regard to the UGG trademark claim. It's not appropriate to use that one case as the basis of a sweeping analysis of Trademark law, the Lanham Act, and the legitimacy of the UGG trademark. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) That document is only being used for the case examples. The analysis of Trademark law and Lanham Act is supported by Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, a law firm specialising in trademark law, the Journal of the International Trademark Association and the Brooklyn Law School. For the case examples, the text is clear that they are court rulings. Wayne (talk) It's A+B+C = D. You've taken an analysis of Trademark law (which doesn't mention UGGs) and a paper on the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents (which also doesn't mention UGGs) and primary source court docs (which do mention UGGs) and put them together to make a case in Wikipedia's voice for why UGG's defense of its trademark is not valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC) You've lost me. How do you get "not valid" from it? The text clearly supports the validity of Deckers trademark. The analysis of Trademark law is nothing more than context for the dispute so does not need to mention UGGs. In fact, by not mentioning UGGs it enhances the neutrality of the article as the analysis is not tainted by the bias that caused so many problems in the parent article. Without it the article would also be confusing as it would be little more than a he said she said blog. Wayne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The "analysis" consists of selected bits and pieces you assembled to fashion an analysis you decided was right. We require secondary sources do that for us. And if, as you say, the material you combined from various sources to create text "clearly supports the validity of Deckers trademark", then how is that NPOV? The text shouldn't be supporting or challenging a court case. (And no, it's not our job to add our own context). Also, creating an article intended to promote an analysis "not tainted by the bias that caused so many problems in the parent article" is the classic definition of a WP:POVFORK. Not good either. I suggest this section be removed. List the court cases and their outcomes - that's all that's required. If you'd like to have your explanations of trademark law placed into Wikipedia articles about various trademark disputes, maybe you should write an article for a law review or a serious magazine. Then we could quote it, and attribute it as an opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I have done several close reads of the article, including the "Trademark law in the United States" section. I think that the first 3/4 of that section is largely unsourced. Currently, the only things that are sourced in that first 3/4 are editor-chosen examples for the main assertions in that 3/4 section, and none of the main assertions are sourced. Can somebody fix this? North8000 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I've added references for the main assertions and added two images. The "editor-chosen examples" are actually cited in "UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al" so I've added that ref to them as well. Wayne (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I've been following and reading without commenting much. In Wikipedia there is some overlap between common normally accepted summarization and a rigorous reading of wp:nor/synth/ver and I did not want to approach this in an overly stringent way. Also, it may be particularly hard to see acceptable summarization is a field such as this. On the other hand, the material has been challenged by LuckyLouie which under wp:ver "challenged or likely to be challenged" increases the sourcing requirement. The result is that IMHO that section will need some modifications or work to pass GA. This is due to a confluence of these factors (i.e. any one single would probably not be enough to be a problem: The wording has statements that appear to be arguable worded as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. These can take the form of a statement of a point of law, an implicit statement that the selected primary or secondary reference provides authoritative validation etc. The "ability for the reader to check" aspect is considerably weakened by the lack of cite page numbers, and this is for some large (~50 page) technical documents. It's quite possible (particularly in view of your comments) that there is more of a basis for those statements, but it is not goven in the article. For example, if the UGG case finding said that Case "A" provides the important precedent", the text should say "the UGG cited that Case "A" ......" not just "Case A provides the precedent" in the voice of Wikipedia/the editor. IMHO some extra work on that section regarding the above three points, or a paring back of that section is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC) That section just strikes me as a bad idea all around. On the one hand, I can understand Wayne wanting to helpfully 'guide' the reader in understanding the often confusing "he said, she said" nature of legal battles. On the other hand, we would not add a section to O. J. Simpson murder case that explains the relevance of ‪felony murder rule and probable cause for the reader, so we should certainly not do it here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) The "guide" is needed because there is no U.S. law covering this topic, The Lanham Act does not apply. The Doctrine is only a guideline not a law and does not apply to English speaking countries anyway. This makes mention relevant. The challenge is invalid. I have not "selected bits and pieces...[I] decided was right," this is simply how the law works and I included everything relevant. The trademark dispute has been extensively debated on the Ugg boots talk page (some now in archives) where this article was supported and LuckyLouie's arguement for including the court cases rejected. This article was a direct result of that discussion. I'll ask all the Ugg editors if they want to comment. I'm not sure how it can be worded any differently. They are not "interpretations" as we would normally use the term, they are statements of fact from the Lanham Act and Doctrine that the secondary sources have put in plain English. There is no alternate interpretation that contradicts how this article says the trademark laws work in relation to this subject. The laws and guides are obviously more complicated, for example, a mark can be both a registered trademark and generic at the same time through four different mechanisms but that is irrelevant to this article. Which references need page numbers? Those were not cited by the court as precedents, they were cited by the court as examples. The doctrine itself simply states that the doctrine only applies to the English translation of a word from a foreign language. I have moved a sentence to make this clearer. Wayne (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC) One quick preliminary note: When I used the word "precedents" I mean that word as an example of a status, not just that word. So my point is that the body or source that gave it that status should be noted. In short, if the fact is "Court XYZ said that ABC is relevant" in this case it should be written that way, not just "ABC is relevant" . North8000 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're talking about, Wayne. Should the readers also be "guided" through an explanation of Australian trade mark law? Why just the US? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Australian trade mark law applies to the use of the Ugg marks in Australia and the Australian court rulings are based on those laws, so just noting the rulings is fine. In the case of the U.S. it is unique, there is no U.S. law or guideline that applies to trade marks from a foreign English speaking country, hence why the different rulings use different reasoning. This situation, and the fact that court cases involving Deckers cite these rulings and interpretations, means this article needs to include how the law applies in regards to this subject for context. Wayne (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC) OK the article needs to include how the law applies in regards to this subject for context. What about "(The UGG trademark) is entitled to the specific presumption that [it] is not generic", per CocaCola vs. Overland, Inc., Filipino Yellow Pages, etc. discussed on page 5 of the Koolaburra decision? Is this being left out of your "context" to the reader? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Please read the article before making accusations, the article already says As the UGG mark was registered, Deckers was entitled to the assumption that it was not generic. The specific cases cited here are the ones that virtually all sources cite, CocaCola vs. Overland was only cited by Walter as far as I know. We cant include every precedent cited in every Decker case or we'll get bogged down so we cover the relevant points. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Detailed work on the "Trademark law in the United States" section Instead of me attempting to give an "overall reading" on this how about we discuss and work on some details on that section and see where that takes us? So the individual items that I'm bringing up are not necessarily requirements for GA, they are an attempt to move forward on this section. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 1: On the first sentence in the section could you provide a page number in the reference for "it does not address terms that are used generically in foreign countries" ? I think that this may result in repeating the reference a few time, but it's just a few and probably not enough reason to go to sfn formatting to avoid that. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 2: On the second sentence in the section, could you provide a page number in the/a cite for " The Doctrine of foreign equivalents guideline serves this purpose."? North8000 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 3: The Chaudhri piece appears to be an excellent secondary source for the material earlier in this section. I have not looked closely, but did the Chaudhri piece reference the Otokoyama case and the Enriqu Bernat piece / cases as establishing those two rationales? If so, it would be better to cite Chaudhri (the secondary source) on that. 4: For the statement "However, the doctrine does not apply if the generic word is not a word from a foreign language but one from an English speaking country" a court document is given as the source. This is a rather sweeping statement in the voice of Wikipedia sources (only) to a particular court document. For it to stay that way I think that changing to a pretty good secondary source would be required. Alternatively, the wording could be modified (including adding context and attribution wording) to bring it in line with acceptable use primary sources, and adding page numbers for the cites would be good. 5: For many of the items in the paragraph that starts with "The doctrine of foreign equivalency holds that the generic status accorded to English words in foreign countries has no bearing on the registration of marks in the United States...." also pretty sweeping statements in the voice of Wikipedia sources (only) to a particular court document. For them to stay that way I think that changing to a pretty good secondary source would be required. Alternatively, the wording could be modified (including adding context and attribution wording) to bring it in line with acceptable use primary sources, and adding page numbers for the cites would be good. The last paragraph in that section looks pretty good. Well sourced to good secondary sources. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Modified North8000 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Thx for the guidance. I just picked up my new computer so will be spending some time transfering files, downloading etc so will look at doing some work on the article possibly tomorrow. Wayne (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Done. 1: Reworded a little and added two new references. 2: Done. 3: Done. I also found online sources for the court cases for the two direct quotes. 4: Reworded a little and added new references in support. 5: Reworded and cited page numbers. Let me know what else needs looking at. Wayne (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC) OK, will do. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Regarding #3, did the Chaudhri piece cite those 2 cases as establishing those rationales? If so I think it would be good to add a Caundri footnote/cite to those two rationales. That would confirm / remove any question that Chaundri (not a Wikipedia editor) determined that those two cases established those two rationales. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) The two cases did not establish the two rationales but are examples, chosen by Chaudhri, of cases where the courts unambiguously explained the rationales. The two rationales are policy. I've reworded a little to make this clear. Wayne (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I think I'll just add Chaudhri cites by those two cases to indicate that Chaudhri (not the Wikipedia editor) chose them This is me acting as an editor, not a reviewer...please feel very free to revert if you do not agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Update on my #5 above. The only cite given for the sentence: "Thus the doctrine is interpreted by courts as not applying if the generic word is not a word from a foreign language, but one from an English speaking country." is to the ruling for this case. Suggest a secondary source for that broad reaching statement made in the voice of Wikipedia. Alternatively, it could be reworded to be aligned whith the limited allowable uses of primary sources.....i.e. to just say what the finding was in this case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC). This is where it is tricky. The manual for when to apply the doctrine doesn't specifically say that, it says simply: "The doctrine should be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the foreign (non-English) word into its English equivalent" (my emphasis). By extention, the Doctrine does not apply if the word is English which means exactly the same and is how the courts apply it, but is much clearer to the average reader. I've added a reference for the manual. Interestingly, the Doctrine forbids using geographic locations in a tradmark unless the product is manufactured in that location. If the Doctrine applied to English speaking countries, Ugg Australia would have been refused registration in the U.S. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I did some more reading and found that the Rest source specifically refers to English language words being treated differently to Foreign language words (ie:Doctrine applies to one but not the other, see note 3). I also created a notes section for the notes previously in references section. Feedback on this would be appreciated. Wayne (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I've actually been reading it and thinking about it all day. I think that its getting better and better and getting close. This is a complex topic that is made 5 times more complex checking for / guiding it to compliance with Wikipedia policies, which kick into a different gear when the material is challenged, as someone else did here. It has to come from the sources. I think that we're almost there or maybe there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I made one additional change and think that it is OK now.North8000 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC) There are two cases mentioned so shouldn't court should be plural? Several other cases used similar arguements with similar rulings but these two are almost universally cited by the courts and other sources. I've made a few other tweaks for clarity you may want to check. Wayne (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I'm thinking that there may be an underlying misunderstanding of what the main question/issue is, and we may be speaking different languages. I have found a succinct sentence which describes the core of my concerns with that section (and I think those of the other person), and, since it is the core concern, it is the criteria that has been driving my suggestions, and the criteria by which I've been reviewing the changes. The sentence is: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." When I said that we may be speaking different languages, I mean that you seem to be having a discussion on whether created instructive material in this section has been accurately created by you (or you and me), whereas I am trying to make sure that instructive statements are created by other authors, not by you/us, and that the wording, citing and sources shows that it was created by other authors. Also the precursor requirement that the material be cited and sourced kicks into to higher gear for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" because LuckyLouie has challenged it. If we could finish off /tweak that section with that criteria in mind, I'll think that we'll be in pretty good shape. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what I need to do. The wording is as near as possible to what the sources are saying, all the sources are reliable and there is no apparent interpretation of sources by WP editors. Wayne (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) I meant that more to help the process move along easier. The ball's in my court at the moment. But at first glance it looked like one change that you just did (changed "one court" to "courts") took that from weak (statement supported by a primary source) to weaker (the mutiple-court statement not even supported by that primary source) But have to do more analyzing to see if that impression is correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) OK, I think that we have just one problematic paragraph left. It the one that begins with "Court cases have noted that the....." There are many routes to fixing that, here is just 'one which might help crystallize the situaiotn. Copy the paragraph to a sandbox. Take out all of the primary sources. This means all of the actual court cases, which means all of the references currently in that paragraph. Now: cite the material in that paragraph using only secondary sources. Take out anything that you can't cite using secondary sources. If you want to add a sentence about what a particular court said on a particular case. you can add that using that case as a primary source. Again, this is just one idea of a way to "get there" ....not saying it has to be done this way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Another would be to just knock that whole paragraph out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC) The rest article discusses and cites every point in that paragraph. We could use that and I'll check around for additional secondary sources. I changed court to the plural because Rest cited more than one court as did the Deckers Severen case, the primary source. Wayne (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC) That last change that I made IMHO fixed on confusing thing (appeared to state that multiple courts ruled that for Ugg specifically), referring to the genericity approach as "doctrine" which that paragraph refutes, and also the synthesis. If this is OK with you, I think that I would feel comfortable with that paragraph, which IMHO was the last "problem" one. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I added to the end of the sentence to tie the examples in. Otherwise I'm happy with how it reads. Wayne (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Page break North8000, please take a look at the edits I've made to the article lede and to the caption of the first photo. Edits to the lede are attempting to treat Deckers and the Australian manufacturers as equals, while Wayne wishes to devote the first 6-7 sentences exclusively to telling the Australian manufacturers' version of the story. The caption I've provided is much more informative and explains how one New Zealand manufacturer is skirting dangerously close to counterfeiting the UGGS brand, but getting away with it. Wayne has reverted me. I would like to know what you think of these edits. Do you agree that my version is more neutral and informative? 24.248.1.3 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)— 24.248.1.3 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. This is not another page for Deckers. The image is a pair of boots with nothing to indicate who made them which is appropriate for a neutral article. Implying in the caption that a legally registered logo is counterfeit is innapropriate... and unsourced. The article says In the United States and Europe UGG boots are.... Using the locations, manufacturer and brand name along with the mentions in the next paragraph makes well-known and widely-recognized both redundant and promotional. Deckers sales are irrelevant to this particular article. There are three other WP articles that detail sales. This article attempts to be as neutral as possible and as such avoids unnecessary mentions of brands outside of the court cases themselves. As for exclusively telling the Australian manufacturers' version, Deckers is the only company mentioned in the lead which is simply a collection of indisputed facts. I've kept the edits you made that are neutral. Wayne (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC) No, this is not "another page for Deckers." This could be another page for trashing Deckers, and providing support for Australian boot manufacturers. Let's try to avoid that this time. The prominently placed logo on the heel clearly indicates who made them: a New Zealand company an Australian company that is obviously mimicking Deckers trade dress. The word "mimicked" is appropriate and accurate. A source has been found and added to the caption. Cut "widely-recognized," keep "well-known." It's notable and accurate, not promotional. Sources are abundant. One will do. Deckers sales accurately demonstrate the enormous growth of this fashion trend. It's well-sourced. If you can think of a different and better way to measure the growth of this fashion trend, such as sales by Australian companies (with a reliable source), I would be happy to use that instead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I might be wearing a couple of different hats here. As a reviewer, my job relates to determining if it meets GA criteria. I'd also be happy to try to help sort this out which may involve giving some opinions in that respect rather than as reviewer. Just so that you understand. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I look forward to your impartial opinions in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I'm tryin'. With 16 edits in two days it's slow going' (within available time) for me to try to even distill what the open points of contention are. Any help on the latter would be appreciated and help speed up the process. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You said below that "the lead is a bit sparse." It's clearly an effort to put a little meat on those bones. For the time being, the bulleted points by Wayne above, and my point by point response, distill the open points fairly well. We may have other issues as time goes on. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC) My quick gut feels on those three points: IMHO that extra wording in the caption, through its focus is POV and best left out. The picture is best for the article in general. Still don't know that the specific content question. Again, just because I haven't had the time to dig in deep/ thoroughly. Vaguely speaking, I think that sales numbers are useful because they communicate the order of magnitude of the things being discussed Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your unbiased opinion. Here's my response and explanation. For purposes of the article, one useful purpose for the extended caption is to introduce and illustrate the "fake UGGs" phenomenon for the reader. In the fashion world, it isn't just the style that's important to the consumer; it's the brand name, such as Vera Wang dresses, Calvin Klein blue jeans, Swatch wristwatches, or Manolo shoes. Deckers successfully created a worldwide following for the UGGs brand, not just the boot style. Some manufacturers in Australia and New Zealand aren't content with marketing ugg style sheepskin boots. They attempt to mimick as many details of the UGG brand as possible. In at least one case, an Australian-based manufacturer went so far in this direction that the owners were ordered by an Australian court to stop the practice and, when they refused, they were imprisoned for contempt of court. The practice is known as counterfeiting; the term doesn't apply only to money. See the decision by the Dutch court in the La Cheapa case. Other AU/NZ manufacturers don't cross the line into illegality, but some come very close to it. This photo is an example of the latter. Several web pages have appeared on the Internet, created by loyal UGGs customers, teaching potential customers the secrets of spotting and avoiding these fake UGGs. Wayne claims that use of the terms "well known" and "widely recognized" in reference to the UGGs brand is "promotional," meaning that Wikipedia is being used as an advertising vehicle. However, it's a fact that UGGs is a "well known" brand in North America, Europe, Japan, China and even Australia, where it's known as UGG Australia. This fact is easily documented in several highly reliable, neutral sources. I chose to use the court decision from the Turkish court as the source but there are many more. The words "well known" are actually a factor in trademark law that is recognized internationally. A brand must be well known in a particular country in order to be registered as a trademark in that country, to survive challenges by rival manufacturers, and to defeat counterfeiters in court. Thanks for seeing immediately that the use of sales numbers is illustrative, not promotional as Wayne has claimed. As you observed, the sales numbers clearly illustrate the magnitude of the growth of the UGGs brand. Total sales of UGG brand boots were US$14.5 million in 1995, and over US$1 billion in 2012, the growth all due to clever marketing by Deckers. Naturally, Deckers is reluctant to see others reaping the benefits of Deckers marketing efforts by mimicking the UGG brand. And just as naturally, AU/NZ manufacturers resent the exploitation of a unique item from their culture by an American firm, while they are left by the fashion roadside. But the AU/NZ culture didn't consider the ugg-style boot to be a fashion item. Like blue jeans, they were originally utilitarian items worn by working class people, and not perceived as stylish; but a small segment of the industry began marketing them as high fashion items (i.e. Guess and Calvin Klein in the case of blue jeans, Deckers in the case of ugg style boots), and they were very successful. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I was hoping this wouldn't happen. User:Phoenix and Winslow was a very active and highly disruptive editor on the Ugg Boots article who edits from a very strong pro Deckers position. He has previously been cautioned for his behaviour regarding ugg boots articles at several noticeboards and only avoided possible sanctions because he stopped editing the topic. He is also a WP:SPA on several foreign language Wikipedia articles about Deckers. The origin of this article was to have a stricly neutral article that carried no pro or anti Deckers implications that would attract the edit warring the Ugg article was plagued with. Till now it was successful, this article was strictly facts about a narrow topic without anything in the slightest way promotional of any viewpoint. I fail to see how this article trashes Deckers, and provides support for Australian boot manufacturers as Phoenix and Winslow claims. It is very clearly explained that the uggs genericity does not apply overseas. The text added to the image is irrelevant, indisputably promotional and the reference supporting it fails verification, nowhere does it include a picture of those boots or mention the manufacturer. This article is not about counterfeits, and the existance of fake uggs is totally irrelevant. The La Cheapa case found that the "fake" uggs manufactured in Australia were not in violation of trademark law and Deckers was ordered to pay costs. The counterfeits in the La Cheapa case were a different brand made in China. Being a legal product, Wikipedia can't imply they are fake Deckers. In the case of the Australian-based manufacturer, Phoenix and Winslow has pushed this before as an example of dishonest Australians, and dishonest Australian WP editors. The manufacturers in question were Russian immigrants acting illegally as part of organised crime and should not be used to disparage traditional Australian manufacturers. As for well known, the wording of the existing text already lets the reader know that Deckers is a widely recognised brand by confining generic uggs to Australia and New Zealand and Deckers uggs to the rest of the world. How well known? Deckers own surveys of women in America who would purchase ugg boots found only 58% recognised the name as a brand name, how well known in other countries? who knows? I have no problem with it staying if it is not expanded upon. Uggs being a fashion trend is irrelevant to this article. Three other Wikipedia articles already illustrate the magnitude of the growth of the UGGs brand and I can't see how it is relevant to this article which would generally only be read after navigating here from one of those three pages. If Phoenix and Winslow intends to continue his disruptive editing I will withdraw the nomination. Thanks for your work North, I apologise for wasting your time. Wayne (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Regarding the GA review, I could let it sit open for a few weeks to see if this gets settled down. I can't pass it with the current fracas going on due to the stability criteria. Regarding the other areas I am an experienced editor familiar with Wikipedia policies, but I don't have knowledge on the topic of this article. Also I have been getting pulled around elsewhere in Wikipedia at the moment which means that between that and real life my depth of analysis here that I could do is not sufficient in the areas of issue is not sufficient. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC) There's no "fracas." Wayne has made his usual accusation, and his usual claim that his POV-pushing was actually an effort to make the article NPOV. But if every effort to improve a Wikipedia article is fairly described as a "fracas," then we should have a lot more of them. Currently the lede is much improved. Rather than telling the Australian manufacturers' version of events for the first 6-7 sentences, the Australian version and the Deckers version are interwoven. The caption on the "Super Uggs" brand boots has been corrected — they're actually made by an Australian company in suburban Melbourne. A photo of Deckers UGGs has been provided so that the reader can see the similarity for himself. Deckers owns over 90% of the worldwide market share for ugg style boots, so having no photo of Deckers UGGs appearing in the article at all is a bit biased. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC) In that area, here is the actual official criteria that I need to review by: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC) In the "Trademark law" section, how do you feel about a paragraph on counterfeiting and trade dress law? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Counterfeiting seems to imply that such is relevant here, and I do not see that in the topic or content. Give me more time if you want my thoughts on trade dress. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC) First sentence of the "Recent cases" section: "During a trademark infringement and trade dress case in 2008, a generic term defense was rejected by a Dutch court as not being applicable to counterfeit goods." [Emphasis added.] The Dutch case was about many things, including counterfeiting and trade dress. The Dutch importer, La Cheapa, was found guilty of importing counterfeit goods. There are a lot of other counterfeiting cases in Australia, the US, UK and China that haven't even been mentioned here yet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC) This article is about the law regarding, genericity, not regarding counterfeits which is covered in the Deckers articles. The only reason it is included here is because Deckers claimed the Australian made uggs were also counterfeit. The court ruled they were not and that their using the word Ugg did not infringe the Deckers trademark. a generic term defense was rejected by a Dutch court as not being applicable to counterfeit goods makes the difference clear and the composition of this article (ie:leaving counterfeit cases out) was the result of a consensus gained on the Ugg boots Talk page. Take a break North and we'll see if the article settles down in a week or so. Wayne (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC) The title of the article says "trademark disputes," not "genericity." Consensus on the Ugg boots article is not consensus on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article, since most of those editors aren't even here and have never been here. If they magically show up now, it will be a fairly obvious violation of WP:CANVASS. And Consensus can change. Counterfeiting is a trademark related dispute and this is not the Australian ugg boots manufacturers genericity disputes page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Consensus on the Ugg boots article was that counterfeits were getting too much coverage and that they were more appropriate on the Deckers and UGG Australia pages. The trademark disute regarding genericity was a major problem with pro-Deckers editors who claimed it promoted Australian manufacturers so it was suggested a dedicated neutral article be made for this topic, this is it. Quote: "If they magically show up now, it will be a fairly obvious violation of WP:CANVASS." So says the king of canvassing for support lmao. In this case it would not be canvassing to leave a notification on the Ugg boots Talk page inviting all interested editors to participate here as those editors were involved in creating and supporting this page and most supported the exclusion of counterfeits. Besides, there is no dispute regarding counterfeits, counterfeits are always illegal. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Let's allow North8000 to weigh in on this. He's been very neutral and fair in handling this matter. Reviewing this Talk page, it's clear that both North8000 and LuckyLouie have found fault with your WP:SYNTH violations, and your tendency to use Wikipedia's voice to lecture Deckers for being so naughty. My position is that Deckers manufactures and markets ugg style boots; that in this process, Deckers has encountered many trademark related disputes, including counterfeiters and trade dress violators, and has compiled a "win a few, lose a few" track record; and that not all of Deckers' adversaries in these matters were Australian. The title indicates this article isn't just about Australian boot manufacturers and their disputes with Deckers — it's about all trademark-related disputes involving ugg boot brands of all nationalities, and trademark violators of all nationalities. Deckers invested the marketing money, came up with the brilliant ideas in the offices of Deckers marketing firms, and pursued the product placements and celebrity endorsements with free samples of Deckers products, to create a billion-dollar worldwide market for ugg style boots outside Australia and New Zealand. Currently over 90% of worldwide ugg style boot sales are by Deckers. They are the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room. Imagine writing an article about Operating system copyright disputes by focusing only on disputes between Microsoft and software companies from one other country. Furthermore, Deckers products are more high end and more expensive, so calling them the 1100-pound Triple Crown horse racing champion in the room would be more appropriate. So it was inevitable that the counterfeiters' principal target would be Deckers rather than Luda Productions or Blue Mountain Uggs, and that the story about trademark disputes worldwide has generally been a story about Deckers' victories and defeats. Also, I notice that the trademark dispute about one Australian-based group of Russian immigrants made it into the article. Why not that other trademark dispute about that other Australian-based group of Russian immigrants? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC) If my advice is wanted, I would start with a framework / skeleton to work within/upon and here would be some main elements. Title and scope of the article. The title looks good and presumably has some roots in discussion. So then the question is how broadly or narrowly to interpret that. My advice is for it to follow the common meaning(s) of the title. So this means avoiding pedantically splitting hairs to exclude material that seems germane, or creatively finding ways to link material that isn't really germane. Plus include whatever other info directly aids the reader in understanding that topic, i.e. helps the article communicate that topic to the reader. In cases there are any interests or biases that are nudging anybody to want to tilt the article on way or the other, my advice is that check those at the door and just try to make a neutral quality article. This has pragmatic as well as high-minded reasons. If there are significant conflicting efforts to tilt the article, the inevitable result is a year or two of pain and ulcers ahead of you and a crappy article. And who wants to go though all of that grief and only have crap to show for it? It sounds like y'all may have some history with each other. If y'all would like me to make an attempt at helping to unwind that let me know. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your very general advice. Yes, we have a history. I would prefer to act like an adult, not dredge it up, and move forward instead with improving this article and obtaining GA status for it. Let's move from your general advice to the specific. Do you feel that counterfeiting is not germane to the topic? With Deckers UGGs owning over 90% of worldwide market share, where does information end and promotion begin? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC) (BTW I think I wrote confusingly - by "unwind" I just meant a new atmosphere, not going back into old stuff.) I don't think that I'd call counterfeiting a "dispute". That last questiotn is too non-specific for me to answer. In general, overtly promotional material is a style that can be spotted and avoided. Wp:npov provides a lot of guidance, but not enough to be an answer to everything. My plan in my first items above was trying to suggest a way to fill in a few of the gaps in wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC) You said, "Overtly promotional material is a style that can be spotted and avoided." Wayne has been quick to claim that any material that casts Deckers in a non-negative light is "promotional." If you happen to notice anything that is genuinely promotional, please speak up immediately. Don't be shy. I have a thick skin, otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to put up with him for so long. Thanks again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Can you point out anything at all in the article that "casts Deckers in a negative light" as you claim? User:North8000 had concerns about wording but none involved Synth and at no time has the article "lectured Deckers for being so naughty". What makes you think the article is ONLY about Deckers and Australian boot manufacturers? The disputes section is about the two primary court cases, involving one Australian and one American company, and is split 50/50. The recent section includes two Australian, a Turkish and a Dutch case which is hardly restricting the disputes to one nationality. What is the "Australian-based group of Russian immigrants" you claim is in the article? This article is not specifically about Deckers, it is irrelevant whether the manufacturer of the boots is Billy Bob Hatfield from the Ozarks or Deckers, the dispute itself, not the participants is the subject. Also regarding your reliability, you claim "brilliant ideas in the offices of Deckers marketing firms pursued the product placements and celebrity endorsements with free samples of Deckers products, to create a billion-dollar worldwide market." Ugg Holdings was responsible for virtually all that before Deckers purchased the company. Quote: Don't be shy. I have a thick skin, otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to put up with him for so long. Did you forget reporting me on the user conduct board? Despite canvassing for support, and then claiming it was only a coincidence they all supported you when an admin critisized you for it, neither yourself nor the seven editors canvassed could provide a single diff as proof in support of my alleged bad behaviour. Is it any wonder I have trouble assuming good faith on your part? Wayne (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC) One of the reasons why I choose to act like an adult, and not dredge up your bad behavior, is that you consistently distort and spin-doctor every event and correcting your distortions is such an enormous chore. I'm not going to take the bait this time. I prefer to work on this article, improve it and secure a Good Article rating for it. North8000 has proven to be a constructive working partner. You could be one as well if you try. Any time persons or entities lose court battles, it casts a negative light on them. The courts (or administrative agencies, such as IP Australia and the USPTO) are impartial and have found them at fault. Their faults have generally caused suffering, financial loss and hardships for others, and they wouldn't even be notable enough to be reported here if such losses and hardships weren't substantial. When Deckers lost to Uggs-N-Rugs, and indeed whenever Deckers lost any court battle, several persons and entities in Australia expended substantial amounts of money, effort, ink, paper, broadcasting time and bandwidth portraying Deckers as a bully. (You happen to be from Australia. Fancy that.) And the Uggs-N-Rugs case has always been described with affectionate attention to detail in this article, and in every WP article that mentions Deckers. The company purchased existing trademarks in good faith from that were originally registered by an Australian, sought to lawfully protect those trademarks, and has been demonized for it. Luda Productions is run by an Australian-based Russian immigrant couple, Luda and Roman Fishman. Their case has been reported in detail using Wikipedia's voice. Deckers lost, Deckers appealed and the case is slowly winding its way through the appeals process. Another Australian-based Russian immigrant couple family, Vladimir and Victoria Vaysman,[1] wasn't so fortunate. They lost. Deckers won. In fact, an Australian judge sent them to prison for contempt of court. And for some strange reason, that case has never even been mentioned here. Every time I tried to mention it in the Ugg boots article, I was met with a deafening chorus of screaming from the Australian editors, including you. Please explain for North8000's benefit why the Luda Productions case has always been reported here in detail, but the Vaysman case has never even been mentioned despite its remarkable similarity. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Just a note for clarification: When Deckers bought UHI, annual sales were under $20 million. If I'm not mistaken, the celebrity spokesman was Rush Limbaugh. Marketing efforts were very clumsy, and the result was weak growth. Deckers initiated the tranformation of the UGG brand into a high fashion item, with product placements and celebrity endorsements by movie stars who were a lot more sexy than Limbaugh. You claim that UHI made those changes, but the Wall Street Journal[2] says that Deckers made those changes. If you don't mind, Wikipedia should go with the Wall Street Journal's version. And now UGG boot sales are over $1 billion a year, due entirely to the changes in marketing effected by Deckers, not UHI, and certainly not Uggs-N-Rugs. It seems you have trouble believing (or allowing Wikipedia to state) that anything good was ever done by Deckers, or that anything bad was ever done by anyone else. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC) After writing that first paragraph I'm surprised that your pants didn't spontaneously combust. Please refrain from making false claims about this article. Provide evidence that the Uggs and Rugs case is "described with affectionate attention to detail" and that this article is "demonising" Deckers. The Luda and Vaysman cases are not remotely similar no matter how you twist it. Luda is a legitimate company producing a legal product while the Vaysmans were producing only counterfeits and were involved with organised crime. I hardly consider six lines of text sprinkled with The court found and The court noted describing the Luda case, as "reporting in detail using Wikipedia's voice." Are you trying to tell me that Deckers arranged for Oprah to endorse the boots? According to the Wall Street Journal, the "celebrity endorsements" were celebrities buying the boots themselves because they saw them on Oprah. Wayne (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Since you admit I'm the one who had "seven editors" who "supported [me]," I'm not the one who needs asbestos underwear when describing those events, Wayne. When I started working on the Ugg boots article, the description of the Uggs-N-Rugs case was around 500 words. Now it's down to 158. In this article, it's back up to around 280 depending on what's counted. That's affectionate attention to detail. And if Luda had lost, or if Deckers wins their appeal, would you agree that the Luda case is similar to the Vaysman case? The principal difference is that Mr. and Mrs. Fishman won, but Mr. and Mrs. the Vaysmans lost; because from there, the reader infers that the Fishmans didn't violate the law, but the Vaysmans did. This article doesn't demonize Deckers, and I didn't say that it does. But it does link to several Australian (and, in the case of Kathy Marks, British) sources that demonize Deckers. (I remember when the heavily biased Ms. Marks was being cited 11 or 12 times for the Ugg boots article — is that still the case?) And yes, six lines of text is also "reporting in detail." One line with a link would not be "reporting in detail." According to the WSJ article, a few celebrities were saying nice things about UGG brand boots in the UHI days but these were "unsolicited praise"; when Deckers took over, they started deliberately "seeding the product with celebrities and fashion editors." Yes, I'm saying that Deckers arranged for Oprah and several members of her production staff to get free samples. That's how marketing firms start the process of obtaining celebrity endorsements. There was also product placement on the TV series Sex and the City and in several movies; I remember a promotional poster for Raising Helen, showing Kate Hudson wearing a pair of UGG brand boots.[3] Things like that didn't just happen. Nor did the ads in Vogue magazine. Deckers marketing dollars made them happen. And when you claim that the celebrity endorsements "were celebrities buying the boots themselves because they saw them on Oprah," the WSJ doesn't say that either. And it isn't even relevant to making this particular Wikipedia article a better article. Neither are some of the other items you've chosen to dredge up. Please focus on improving this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know whether to sit back or try to help. If it were the latter, while the general discussions are also helpful, I would recommend moving on to any specific proposed changes in content, if there are any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC) My specific proposed change is to include a paragraph about the Vaysman case. This source[4] dscribes the Vaysmans as siblings. I've tried very hard to find any mention of links to organized crime that Wayne alleged, but I've been unsuccessful. Notice that while the Vaysmans' actions have been described by some journalists and attorneys as "counterfeiting," the court found them liable for "trademark infringement." Thus it was a "trademark dispute." The case demonstrates that the Australian manufacturers aren't the only injured parties. It is also very notable, because people so rarely go to prison for this sort of thing, as the law firm's commentary at the beginning and end of the linked article indicates. Not even the Uggs-N-Rugs case, despite the amount of attention that it got from the Australian and British media, in a documentary and even on the floor of the Australian Parliament, resulted in a prison term for any Deckers associate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC) There was NO dispute. The Vaysmans did not even offer a defense and the court made a summary judgment. Deckers claim held that the Vaysmans had "infringed the copyright of Deckers Outdoor Corporation INC (Deckers) by manufacturing and selling counterfeit copies of its UGG Australia branded Ugg boots." According to the judges, the case was an intellectual property violation which means both trademark and design ie: counterfeit. The reason for the goal terms is that the Vaysmans were caught making the counterfeits three times, ignored two previous court orders to cease making counterfeits, opened a secret workshop, declared bankruptcy to avoid paying damages and refused a court order to disclose the financial gains they made from their sales. This was classed as criminal contempt rather than the normal contempt of court. Wayne (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's what made this trademark dispute so notable and yes, there was a trademark dispute. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph:[5] "The dispute between Deckers and the Vaysman siblings and companies has spanned seven years." [Emphasis added.] If it wasn't a trademark dispute, it wouldn't have gone to court. The Vaysmans' way of defending their position was to agree to an out of court settlement, and ignore it; agree to another out of court settlement, and ignore it; declare bankruptcy to avoid paying damages, etc. This was buying them time to continue their infringement of Deckers trademarks and make more money. This time, Deckers was the victim and the Australian-based manufacturer was the bully. It's a "man bites dog" story that goes 180 degrees against the narrative that you and the Australian manufacturers would prefer to see here: that Deckers is always the bully, and the Australians are always the victims. You put up the same tenacious fight to keep out the Dutch case at Ugg boots. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I tend to think of dispute as involving opposing viewpoints. And so I tend to not think of counterfeiting and related actions as a trademark dispute. But might this still be useful / "close enough" material to include in the article? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I'd give it less space than the Luda Productions case. Wayne feels that Luda Productions hasn't been described in detail, so I would be happy to stay well within that boundary. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Page break 2 Counterfeiting is not a trademark dispute and definitely not in the meaning of the title of this article which is the common name used for the genericity dispute. There are four articles covering ugg boots, two of those cover counterfeits and Phoenix and Winslow is free to detail the Vaysman case there. This one and the origin article had consensus not to include counterfeits on the grounds of relevancy. It was also consensus to reduce the trademark dispute detail in the Ugg boots article and make this dedicated article so the Dutch case is irrelevant in the Ugg article. Phoenix and Winslow took part in the discussions and at the RFC and was the only editor supporting inclusion. RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits: The concensus reached was to exclude the court cases. Except for one single-purpose account which was ignored, there is only one (albeit very vocal) editor arguing for keeping these cases in the article. Detailed descriptions of those cases properly belong on the article about the brand or the company's article. Note can be made here that such cases exist, but should not take up half of the article.--Aervanath (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Both the origin article and this one have been stable since that concensus was gained. Now both are being disrupted to make them give more prominence to Deckers by adding irrelevant material. Wayne (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC) The Australian court defined the Vaysman case as trademark infringement, which is a trademark dispute. The reliable source described the Vaysman case as a "dispute" involving trademarks, so I think we should obey the reliable source when determining what's within the meaning of the title of this article. Aervanath said "note can be made here that such cases exist[.]" But when such a note was added to the Ugg boots article yesterday, Wayne called it a "disruption." I'm just trying to improve these articles. And according to Wayne's own definition of "detailed" as applied to the Luda Productions case, I'm certainly not seeking a "detailed" description here. Furthermore, Aervanath's comments about "taking up half the article" applied to the Ugg boots article. This is the Ugg boots trademark disputes article and if these cases belong anywhere at Wikipedia, they belong here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC) It looks like that to comment usefully/intelligently I'll need to learn all 4 articles. But one note (if it applies) is that it's probably useful/best to avoid overlap between sub-articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC) You'll notice immediately that the Uggs-N-Rugs case, reported in detail, has overlapped between all four articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC) The Uggs-N-Rugs case is especially relevant to all four articles and mention is appropriate. It is summarised in three of those articles and detailed in this one. This article only details two notable examples of the dispute so why are you so fixated on reducing mention of Uggs-N-Rugs? The other example, the American Koolaburra case, which Deckers won conclusively, is covered in more detail than the Australian case (using twice as many words) yet you have not asked to have that one reduced in size. Wayne (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I admire your commitment North8000. Thx for taking the time to continue with the assessment. Wayne (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Wayne, there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I haven't suggested reducing the size of any case description in this article. I have merely observed that they are described in what I believe to be a significant amount of detail. Conserving space or bandwidth doesn't appear to be an issue. As you've done with the Uggs-N-Rugs case and the Luda Productions case, this is the article where all the notable trademark disputes related to ugg style boots, of any brand, should be described in some detail. Splitting hairs over what is, or is not a "trademark dispute," within the obvious meaning of the article's title, doesn't seem to be in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. The Uggs-N-Rugs case is notable in Australia, but it has had virtually zero effect anywhere else in the world, as those who attempted to use the generic defense in the United States, the Netherlands and Turkey found out to their dismay. And Deckers is thriving in spite of the Uggs-N-Rugs case, with over $1 billion in annual worldwide sales, while the "victorious" Australian manufacturers continue selling a few million dollars' worth. Nevertheless, we devote a large portion of this article (and three other articles) to that case. So certainly there is room here for one more notable case from Australia. The fair question is one of WP:WEIGHT and I concede that the Vaysman case deserves no more weight than the Luda Productions case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC) North8000, I notice that the GA criteria require that the article must "not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." While we've been having a very lively discussion here on the Talk page (wherein I've tried my best to be courteous and respectful), there has been no significant change in the article itself from day to day as a result. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC) So we still need consensus (ie:your approval) to make simple grammatical edits? I thought we had gotten past that. All I can do is expand on what I wrote in my edit summaries. In the United States, Europe and around the world. This is bad grammar which implies that the United States and Europe are not part of the world. "Around the world" basically means the entire world which is incorrect. Saying "many other countries" is more accurate and flows better grammatically. in over 130 countries worldwide, including the U.S. and China. Is clunky and marginally redundant. Why is specific mention of those two countries relevant? In the previous paragraph, the text twice stated that the company and sales are based in the U.S. so repeating it a third time is assuming readers are idiots. Later in the article it already says UGG is trademarked in other countries such as the US, China, Japan and the European Union where such mention is relevant. Do we have your approval? Wayne (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Good morning Wayne. No, it looks fine just the way it stands. Wikipedia's examples of the phrase "and around the world," following a specific citation of one or two countries, include Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing, List of United States military bases, Oktoberfest celebrations, Earth Day, Petroleum, France, Scientific opinion on climate change, The Situation Room (quoting CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer), Reactions to the September 11 attacks, British Army, Trinidad and Tobago, and Associated Press. This style of writing, citing one or two specific examples followed by a general statement, is widely accepted. The specific examples here, the United States and Europe, do not extend all the way around the world. They extend about 1/3 of the way around the world. The statement does not imply that they are not part of the world, but instead indicates that UGG brand boots are also a well-known brand far beyond the boundaries of the two examples cited, and the grammar is correct. The phrase "many other countries" is a little vague. "Many" has been discouraged as a weasel word. Instead of going from the specific to the general, the second targeted statement goes from the general to the specific. Again, it's a broadly accepted style of writing and in this case, the two examples cited are very important to the discussion. An enormous percentage of the world's footwear is currently manufactured in China, including UGG brand boots; and the US is roughly 70% of the world market for ugg style boots. The fact that the company and sales are based in the US is entirely different from the fact that the term is trademarked in the US. And it's common for the lede to restate salient facts that are covered in the body of the article, since it's a summary of those salient facts. After all, you wouldn't want me editing the lede to remove any mention of the genericity of "ugg" in Australia and New Zealand, would you? That's just as redundant, but you won't see me doing it. If North8000 approves your version of the lede with these changes, I would be happy to accept his neutral judgment. Just as I will be happy to accept his final decision on the inclusion of the Vaysman case. As you can see, it's far more notable than other counterfeiting cases because they went to prison. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC) While we're at it, let's discuss those two photo captions. Why are you choosing to suppress the identities of the companies that made those two pairs of boots? The info is available, and this is an article where trademarks, brands and company identities are very relevant. Why withhold this info from readers? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I repeat...This is not an article about Deckers. The lead already says "130 countries worldwide" which is expanded upon in the body. This is not an article where "brands and company identities" are particularly relevant except where neccessary to identify the main characters. The article is not about Deckers or Rugs and Uggs, it is about a genericity dispute. The dispute is the topic and detailing the image captions moves the emphasis from the genericity dispute to a brand dispute. Wayne (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC) The article is not about Deckers or Rugs and Uggs, it is about a genericity dispute. The title of the article doesn't say "genericity dispute." The title says "trademark disputes." And each and every one of the cases you've chosen to include involves Deckers. It seems to me that at least the Deckers corporate identity is relevant. Your position is analogous to editing the Kokoda Track campaign article (regarding another sort of dispute) and claiming that the national identities, such as Australia and Japan, weren't particularly relevant. Or perhaps a better analogy would be letting the national identities stand, but deliberately deleting the battalion, regiment, names and ranks of the soldiers in the photos. For some Australians, the identity of the 39th Battalion is extremely important. For the fashion conscious worldwide, brand identity is extremely important. And I repeat ... this is not the Australian Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC) The title is Ugg boots trademark disputes because that is the term used by the public to describe the genericity dispute. Deckers has repeated mentions in the article where relevant, often with more weight than is required. "For the fashion conscious worldwide" the dispute and this article is irrelevant, the dispute is a legal issue that would be relevant to any brand regardless of category. And I repeat ... this is not the Australian Wikipedia. I also find your exaggerations and innuendos inappropriate. Text covering Australia makes up 20% of the article. Of the two primary court cases that illustrate the dispute, the American case is covered with twice the amount of text of the more significant Australian case. Deckers is mentioned by name 42 times. Other American companies are mentioned by name 13 times. Australian companies are mentioned by name 10 times. I'm finding your racist attitude offensive. You were warned previously in the RFC about making ad-hominem and disrespectful attacks against Australian people and companies. Please strike out your inappropriate and false Kokoda analogy. I can only assume you used the info from my user page in bad faith to choose that analogy. Wayne (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I have been reading the articles and think that I am starting to understand the overall "lay of the land" here. The topic of the article is an area where there is a real world clash, with editors who have views from both sides of the clash. Wikipedia articles in such situations tend to be cases of eternal angst and lower quality because Wikipedia does not currently have the tools (policies/guidelines etc.) to guide such situations to a successful conclusion. The most relevant guideline for most of the contested issues above is the weight section of wp:npov which essentially says to give weight in the article based on the amount of coverage in wp:reliable sources, but that is hard to implement in practice. So I think that if you two aren't able to "rise above it" you are doomed to years of battling over individual sentences. The "rise above it" would be to decide to simply have the article give readers information and understanding on what has happened on the topic. (the topic is basically events/happenings) And so agree that the article is to do only that, not try to right any wrongs, or accomplish any other mission. If both of you agree to that I think that it would be mutually beneficial. Of course, if only one does that then the article will tilt the other way. So agreement could be with the condition that the other person does the same. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC) There is one area where I can give a more clear-cut opinion, and that is in regard to picture captions. Doubly so when the text is disputed, captions should be limited to just generally identifying what is in the picture. I wouldn't expand that at all (including making additional statements) unless there is a clear consensus here to do it. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC) It should be remembered that a single editor with a possible conflict of interest is responsible for the ongoing issue with this article. That this article was submitted for GA status has attracted the attention of Phoenix and Winslow who apparently believes that positive mention of Deckers is of paramount importance regardless of any attempt at neutrality as can be seen in the wording of his posts which often read as if written by Deckers head of marketing. I have made a number of concessions to P&Ws requests that I believe are largely irrelevant to the article yet he is unwilling to concede a single point or accept a compromise on anything. This article clearly shows that genericity has no legal standing outside of Australia/New Zealand, which is very favourable to Deckers position as the other three articles are ambiguous at best on this point, and the text is strongly neutral as it is little more than a statement of facts. Neutrality and readability was the mission of this article and I believe it was largely successful in this. The only "tilt" I can see is that P&W wants to introduce. Wayne (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with you that this article is pretty good and neutral as you wrote it, with the evolutions that we worked out. My previous thoughts still stand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC) What's your opinion on the highly notable Vaysman case? Should it be included here? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) My initial opinion is that I know nothing about it. i searched all 4 articles by that word and found no mention. I searched the web and found that it appears to be a counterfeiting issue/case. I think that it should be mentioned somewhere. I think that it is a matter of (conflicting) opinion(s) whether or not it should be in this article. If there is a doubt, my thought would be a mention in the main Ugg article. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC) As the UGG Australia article mentions counterfeit cases, the Vaysman case can be mentioned there. Wayne (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Counterfeiting is also mentioned here in the description of the Dutch case. And North8000, you "searched all 4 articles by that word and found no mention" because it's been actively suppressed by Wayne. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Deleting all mention of counterfeits was the result of an RFC that you took part in. With the exception of a single vote for keep (yours), the consensus was unanimous. The Dutch case is included in this article because the judge found that the boots with UGG labels that were not conterfeits, were not in violation of Deckers trademark. Counterfeiting is only mentioned in the Dutch case because the judge ruled that a generic defense can not be used for counterfeits. Please avoid making false claims to support your case. I was not involved in any editing or discussions regarding the Vaysman case in either the UGG Australia or Deckers articles, which are both heavily biased to Deckers. I should point out that while both the Ugg Boot and dispute articles detail both the favourable and unfavourable results of court cases, readers of the UGG Australia and Deckers articles are not only not informed that the name is generic anywhere but where a court case is detailed, any unfavourable findings are conveniently not mentioned. There is one interesting instance where the same court case has been detailed in both the counterfeit and trademark sections but presented as two different cases, called a Dutch case in one section and a case in the Netherlands in the other. In the trademark section the case findings are written in such a way that it appears that the judge rejected the name as a generic term for Jumbo Uggs, when in fact the judge found that it was generic in the case of Jumbo Uggs and ordered Deckers to pay costs. You keep saying you want to campaign for neutrality and "Wikipedia policies", I suggest you start with those two articles. It will be interesting to see how interested you are in correcting those, you talk the talk so let's see if you can walk the walk. Wayne (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Wayne, you've actively suppressed any mention of the Vaysman case in both the Ugg boots article and in this one. Not because it's a counterfeit case, but because Deckers won. If the Vaysmans had won, you'd be all about including it in all four articles in detail, just like the Uggs-N-Rugs case. Earlier, your embrace of conspiracy theory and unreliable sources in the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article eventually led to the entire article being stubbed by admins and rewritten, in large part because I called their attention to your embrace of conspiracy theory and unreliable sources. The fact that you've gained support from others who push the same POV at the Ugg boots article doesn't excuse your suppression of information from reliable sources. Here, an unknown IP address editor in Arizona successfully transitioned the lede from the Australian manufacturers' POV to a more neutral approach. Deckers' overwhelming dominance in the worldwide market had been impossible to discern until the very last sentence. You reverted him, quite predictably. But this entire article has been enormously improved because the lede has been enormously improved, even though the Vaysman case will stay out. I think we're done here. Chisel this article into the Wikipedia granite until the next court case is decided — and its inclusion here decided, not on its subject matter, but on whether Deckers won or lost. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You just cant help lying can you? The Franklin article was stubbed for BLP problems not because of my edits. Yes you called "their" attention to my "embrace of conspiracy theory", you forum shopped that claim to four different boards, and even after canvassing for support you still failed to prove a single claim you made about my editing on any of them. I remind you that you were told by admins at WP:ANI not to bring up the Franklin article in attempts to discredit me. Repeat that rubbish you have posted above again and I will report you per WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You were one of the two people who were behind the enormous BLP problems with that article, Wayne. Report me. First your principal source (overused in much the same way you overuse Kathy Marks in the UGGs articles) was declared to be unreliable at WP:RSN here. Then, after a lot of poking and prodding from me, an admin finally took a look at the article, found that all five of the first five statements of fact in the article were unsupported by reliable sources, decided that the rest of it wasn't worth the hassle, and stubbed it. The people who had been falsely accused of running an enormous interstate child prostitution and murder ring, complete with Satanic rituals and snuff films, are innocent; they're prominent, law-abiding citizens of Nebraska, with one or two exceptions, and none was ever arrested, let alone convicted of the offenses described in that article; and they're still alive. The article was a virtual encyclopedia of BLP violations, and you and Apostle12 were responsible. Report me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Get it right...the "principal source" Bryant was not declared unreliable, only his publisher was and that material was in the article before I began editing it. At the WP:FTN you were repeatedly asked to provide diffs to prove that any of my edits were violations. The FTN lasted eight days (over 11,000 words!) and you couldn't even find a single diff as evidence. I'm finished talking to you. The Franklin article has no place in this discussion so grow up and move on. Wayne (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, Bryant's book was declared unreliable. You were prevented from using it as a source. Cuchullain: "Bryant's book is iffy as best ... The less reputable the publisher, the less reputable the source[.]" Doc: "Iffy publisher = Iffy books." Orange Mike: "If stories were published in the World-Herald, then go take a look at the back issues and cite the paper itself, rather than taking Bryant's word for it in this era of Photoshop." Jayjg: "It's pretty obvious from the discussion here that the consensus is that neither DeCamp nor Bryant meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements[.]" And the comment just before Jayjg's was yours, denying that there was any consensus! That article's history as a whole, then and now, demonstrates your willingness to disregard WP policy and your eagerness to post false accusations against anyone who disagrees with you, in pursuit of your agenda. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Page break 3 Folks, if this is for my benefit, I'm slow/careful to form impressions of people, and it largely isn't going to happen from what opponents say. May I suggest narrowing the discussion to just specific things in this article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Well it looks like things are pretty rough going on the talk page but to everyone's credit it hasn't boiled over into edit wars or an unstable article. I'm thinking this meets Good Article criteria. Does anybody think not? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I'm happy with the article as it stands. Thx for your patience North8000. Wayne (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I have a problem with an article that doesn't live up to the title. The title says Ugg boots trademark disputes. But the cases described in the mainspace have been cherry-picked in a way that indicates the title should be Australian ugg boots manufacturers genericity disputes. Any trademark dispute, even a highly notable trademark dispute, that does not involve the genericity defense has been excluded. I'm not edit warring but the result reflects an Australian POV, and it isn't really NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Ugg boots trademark disputes is the term commonly used for the genericity dispute. Examples include these legal websites [6] and [7], this Ugg boot specific blog and other articles. The lead specifically states that this is what the article is about. Per WP:TITLE, Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources...The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." Decker's own webpage on the trademark dispute "details" only three cases, albeit in a highly POV manner with many errors of fact, Uggs-N-rugs, Koolaburra (which they incorrectly state is an Australian company) and the Dutch case. All three are in this article. The fact that the Decker's trademark dispute webpage does not mention counterfeits is significant. Where does cherry-picking for Australian cases come in? There was one major notable case (Australian) and one less notable case (American). Both are in the article. If I remember correctly, you were responsible for choosing all the "recent cases" in the Ugg boots article and I simply eliminated the counterfeit cases per the RFC consensus and transferred the remaining cases to this article. Of those, two are Australian, one is Dutch and one is Turkish. Wayne (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Question from a dummy. I could be wrong on this, but putting it out to see if I am and to help sort this out, aren't "trademark" and "genericity" (of the name) disputes one and the same here? North8000 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Question to Phoenix and Winslow. What would be an example of a trademark or name-genericity dispute that should be covered here but isn't? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC) ... aren't "trademark" and "genericity" (of the name) disputes one and the same here? North8000, I appreciate your continued patience in this matter and I can see from your User Talk page that you're a busy guy. "Genericity" disputes are a subset of trademark disputes, but not all trademark disputes are genericity disputes. A perfect example in this context is the Luda Productions case. Luda Productions has never argued genericity. They are arguing prior use: that they were using the specific phrase "Ugg Australia" before Deckers trademarked it, and are entitled to continue using it. I fully support the inclusion of this non-genericity case in this article. And Wayne would edit war to keep it in if anyone tried to remove it, and post thousands of acrimonious words of argument and false accusations on this page in its defense. Since one non-genericity case is here, why not one more? What would be an example of a trademark ... dispute that should be covered here but isn't? Obviously, the Vaysman case. I have already stated my opinion that it should take up no more space in the article than the Luda Productions case, which Wayne feels is not described in detail. And I have no intention of bringing in any additional counterfeiting cases other than Vaysman, except for a single sentence generally mentioning the existence of other counterfeiting cases without naming them, and with links to other articles. The only reason the Vaysman case should be included here is that it was such an extreme case: highly notable because the counterfeiters went to prison, which is very rare. And the Australian judge found them guilty of "trademark infringement," not "counterfeiting." That is the legal term under Australian law, and the laws of many other countries for the offense commonly known as counterfeiting. Therefore it is properly described as a "trademark dispute." Wayne's arguments against its inclusion amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ugg boots trademark disputes is the term commonly used for the genericity dispute. Wayne, you're trying to exclude anything that isn't a genericity dispute, so what you're really trying to say is that "all trademark disputes are genericity disputes." If you can find a reliable source saying exactly that, without employing WP:SYNTH or other tricks, I'll be just fine with it. One of the sources you cited is Australian, fancy that. Another is British. The third is a blog which appears to mirror the Wikipedia article for Ugg boots. And none of them says, in so many words, that all trademark disputes are genericity disputes. The legal term for counterfeiting in many countries (including Australia and the Netherlands) is "trademark infringement," which makes it a trademark dispute. This is not rocket science. When a counterfeiting case goes to court, it is a dispute. And it involves trademarks. Therefore it is a trademark dispute. It's my position that counterfeiting cases are trademark disputes. The lead specifically states that this is what the article is about. Gee, that's strange. You're the one who originally wrote the lede, and you've reverted any effort to change it, so it comes as no surprise that it's limited to precisely the narrow range of subject matter that you want. ... and I simply eliminated the counterfeit cases per the RFC consensus ... The RFC consensus was about a different article. If I'm not mistaken, it actually occurred before this article was even written, and a "genericity only" content limitation on this article (if this article was even proposed at the time) was never discussed. Wayne, please stop trying to pretend that RFC was determinative about this article. If you'd like, we can hold an RFC that is specific to this article and see what happens. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Hmmmmm. Here is a website that described a counterfeiting case as a "trademark dispute.' And this one specifically refers to "non-counterfeiting-related trademark disputes," leaving a very reasonable inference that there must be some counterfeiting-related trademark disputes. Here is another website describing a counterfeiting case as a trademark dispute. Here's another. And here's another, very recent (March 8, 2013) and published in a highly respected US law journal. Here's another, listing two different counterfeiting cases under the header "Trademark Disputes." It may help to review the Wikipedia articles for Trademark infringement (not such a great article) and Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, an excellent article covering US laws on counterfeiting. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Nobody has ever argued that all trademark disputes are genericity disputes. This article is for the only notable dispute and you are welcome to make other articles for other disputes. Luda Productions may have argued prior use but they never trademarked the name. A prior use defense can not succeed against a trademark without genericity. The Vaysman case is outside of the scope of this article. I gave you two reliable sources calling the genericity dispute an Ugg [boot] trademark dispute. One of those is dated before either of us began editing the Ugg boots article which at that time used the section header "Trademark controversy." The word dispute does not even appear in that version. When a counterfeiting case goes to court, the only dispute is regarding the penalties. Counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes but as WP:TITLE says; The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms. Enough with the accusations. The RFC concluded on a vote of 6 (exclude) to 1 (keep) that the court cases mentioned would be generic and that counterfeit cases be excluded. It was suggested that counterfeit cases belonged in the UGG Australia and Deckers articles. The following month, it was proposed to reduce the trademark disputes to a single paragraph (not by me) and move the existing text to a dedicated article. This was agreed to (again not by me) by several editors as a good idea and I created this article which was subsequently praised by four editors as a "significant improvement." It is obvious from the discussion that this article is what was suggested and expected. For the last 56 months you have been the sole editor (apart from SPAs) arguing to change the focus of the Ugg boots article by adding only material favourable to, or promotional for, Deckers while also deleting reliably sourced unfavourable material, often against consensus. Your agenda is obvious from your edit comments such as the article is clearly about both the product and the brand name, that all Australian articles are propaganda, that focus of the article should be on the world market, your use of disparaging names for Australian companies and changing every mention of "ugg boots" to "sheepskin boots." Don't you think that a new RFC here would be a waste of every-ones time? Wayne (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Nobody has ever argued that all trademark disputes are genericity disputes. When the title of the article says Ugg boots trademark disputes, but all you want to include in the article are genericity disputes, that's what you're arguing: that only genericity disputes qualify as trademark disputes. Luda Productions may have argued prior use but ... a prior use defense can not succeed against a trademark without genericity. Incorrect. Luda Productions succeeded at the IP Australia level, without arguing the genericity of the phrase "Ugg Australia." They only argued prior use. Here is a reliable source discussing the prior use defense, and it doesn't mention genericity. Here is another. The Vaysman case is outside of the scope of this article. I respectfully disagree. You're attempting proof by assertion, which is a logical fallacy. You need to prove, using reliable sources, that a counterfeiting case such as the Vaysman case is not a trademark dispute. I've already provided several reliable sources to the contrary, indicating that counterfeiting cases such as Vaysman are trademark disputes. The title of this article is Ugg boots trademark disputes. Therefore Vaysman is within the scope of this article. I gave you two reliable sources calling the genericity dispute an Ugg [boot] trademark dispute. Neither one of them proves, or even suggests, that a counterfeiting case is not a trademark dispute. When a counterfeiting case goes to court, the only dispute is regarding the penalties. Incorrect. The Dutch La Cheapa case was in part a counterfeiting case. And in defense against the counterfeiting (trademark infringement) charge, La Cheapa argued genericity. That case did not proceed immediately to the penalty phase. Trademark law differs from country to country, so the genericity defense could still be attempted by counterfeiters selling or manufacturing in other countries, such as China. And it would still be a trademark dispute. Counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes ... Thanks for finally conceding that point. I only want to add one counterfeiting case here. The rest can stay out. The RFC concluded ... Please stop pretending that an RFC about another article is determinative regarding the content of this article. ... and I created this article which was subsequently praised by four editors as a "significant improvement." But they didn't say this article should be limited to genericity cases. You're synthesizing two separate discussions that occurred a month apart. Enough with the accusations. That's funny. After saying this, you concluded your post with a long list of your usual accusations. Nothing added here, or sought to be added here, is promotional or North8000 would have objected on that basis. My agenda is only to improve this article, and make it NPOV by including at least a sampling of all the different types of trademark disputes that have arisen from the manufacture and marketing of ugg style boots worldwide. This would include not only genericity (Uggs-N-Rugs and others), but also prior use (Luda Productions) and counterfeiting (Vaysman). I've supported including multiple cases that Deckers lost. If any position argued on this page could reasonably be construed as promotional, it is the exclusion of the Vaysman case. Without Vaysman, the article suggests that any manufacturer based in Australia is as pure as the driven snow, and can do no wrong. The rationale for excluding Vaysman doesn't hold water because the inclusion of the Luda Productions case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-genericity trademark disputes should be included. As I've said several times, the Vaysman case is extremely notable because the Vaysmans were sentenced to prison. And by the way, LuckyLouie for example is not an SPA. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The Vaysmans’ were specifically charged with and found guilty of having (1) infringed and authorised the infringement of the Copyright Works in breach of ss 36, 37 and 38 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth); (2) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of ss 9 and 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) and ss 52, 53 and 75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth); and to have (3) committed the tort of passing-off. They were not jailed for counterfeiting ("highly notable because the counterfeiters went to prison, which is very rare"), they were jailed for criminal contempt which is a very common result for the offense. Wayne (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC) You keep going back to the technical meaning of "trademark dispute" which is irrelevant. The title is the term commonly used for the genericity dispute as you well know. The genericity dispute according to sources is a widely reported notable dispute, on the other hand counterfeiting uggs is not particularly notable. Broadening the title to it's technical meaning through WP:IDHT is tendentious. Stop filibustering and man up. Wayne (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The technical meaning, and the plain English meaning, of "trademark dispute" is very relevant. After all, the title of this article is Ugg boots trademark disputes, not something else. It's a dispute. It involves a trademark. Several reliable sources have been linked that refer to counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. The Uggs-N-Rugs case received broad coverage, that's true. But Luda Productions has received about as much coverage as Vaysman, and there is no good argument for keeping Luda Productions in while keeping Vaysman out. Nor is there a good argument for keeping both of them out, since that appears to be your next maneuver. Counterfeiting UGGs, by itself, isn't particularly notable; but going to prison for contempt for continuing to counterfeit them, after two court orders to stop production, is notable and is not a "very common result for the offense," as the sources confirm. WP:IDHT refers immediately to consensus, which you do not have in this article; I ask you once again to stop pretending that consensus in some other article equals consensus in this one. Since the title accommodates all types of trademark disputes, keeping this one out is arbitrary and suggests an agenda that isn't in the best interests of Wikipedia. It violates WP:NPOV. Wayne, you can win the content dispute because there isn't a consensus for inclusion without you. But the article can't win Good Article status with one editor continuing to push a POV like this. Wikipedia wins whenever an article achieves Good Article status, and loses whenever GA status is denied. Please allow Wikipedia to win. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC) That a consensus was gained to exclude counterfeiting from Ugg boot Trademark disputes in the main parent article (what you disingenuously call some other article) certainly does carry over to this one as this one was created from that discussion. Please don't feign concern over Wikipedia, if you were genuinely concerned you would have accepted the consensus supported suggestion to keep counterfeiting in the Decker's articles where they belong. Wayne (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) If you want to create an article called Ugg boots counterfeit disputes, please do so. That will resolve all the "problems" you have with this article. Wayne (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC) That a consensus was gained to exclude counterfeiting from Ugg boot Trademark disputes ... That had nothing to do with this article. Once again, please stop pretending that it did. It addressed a section called "trademark disputes," in a different article called Ugg boots. There are two Good Article criteria that require this article to be "Broad in its coverage" and "Neutral," and even if you had consensus here, it would fail on both counts. Therefore you see my comments below on the GA checklist. If you want to create an article called Ugg boots counterfeit disputes, please do so. There are already far too many articles in this topic area, and much of the information is duplicated. Readers should not be forced to click back and forth between four or five different articles to get the facts they're looking for, except for extremely complex topics such as World War II, for which the notable information simply won't fit into one or two articles. This is where the information belongs. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC) This article is "Broad in its coverage within the scope of the topic" the same way that an article on a WWII battle can be a good article despite not giving broad coverage of WWII. It is not up to you to decide what is notable enough to need another article. This one already had a consensus for creation. Instead of making vague claims of POV, please point out the specific text in the article that is not NPOV so it can be addressed. Yet you are the one that has insisted in the past that the information be duplicated. The detail is no longer duplicated in the Ugg boots article because it was transferred here, that is what "main article" redirects are for. Counterfeiting belongs in articles on brands, if notable. Wayne (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this requirement. The lead is a bit sparse, but I have elected to not require expansion. Summarizaiton in this area is very hard to do without getting into contested wp:or / wp:synth and I have been pretty tough on the main editor requiring removal such material. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria. Broad within the limited scope of its topic. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'm very sorry, but it's being deliberately narrowed by one editor trying to WP:OWN it. One type of Ugg boots trademark disputes (counterfeiting) is being excluded in its entirety, while two other types (genericity and prior use) are being included. There is no logical basis for this exclusion. I can't support GA status for this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the inclusion of counterfeit issues is arguable, and thus not grounds for failing this article. BTW, I don't feel that they fall literally under the topic, but my opinion would be to include them here. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Again I apologize, but I cannot support GA status on this basis either. POV-pushing by one editor is keeping out well-sourced, highly notable information that is directly relevant to the topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria. There is significant drama on the talk page, but to the credit of all concerned, it has not translated into edit wars or instability of the article. If this changes, I wil be be the first to nominate it for de-listing North8000 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this requirement. Has one image, free, so no article-specific use rationale is required. Of course more would be nice for an article of this length/substance. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Meets this requirement. Has three images, all free, so no article-specific use rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Result

If I were to just see this article in it's current state, without looking at tags, edit history, discussion history, RFC etc. I would pass it. However it is loaded with tags, there have been large and lengthy disputes in progress, and some degree of instability on the article pages as a result. My approach has been to just leave the review open and see if it settles down or gets resolved. However, this review has now been open for 72 days and is by far the longest open GA review in Wikipedia. I am forced to (for now) non-pass this article due to not passing the stability criteria.

If it settles down or otherwise gets resolved, I would be happy to review it again. And also, once it settles down or gets resolved a bit, if someone leaves me a note on my talk page, I would be happy to start a GA review immediately so that it does not have to go through the 3-4 month waiting process again. The best to everybody here and for the article. I look forward to it achieving Good Article status in the future. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Thank you for your time and patience. The article had been stable since it's creation in March 2012 so I thought it would breeze through. I would not have put it up for GA if I had known there was going to be an objection and can't understand why the issue wasn't brought up sooner. It's certainly a learning experience. Wayne (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)