Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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)

But it's clear that some Australian manufacturers want to piggyback on the success of Deckers, and steal part of the enormous worldwide market that Deckers has created through cleverness, hard work and millions of dollars' worth of marketing. So they have insisted on continuing to use the term "ugg boots" wherever and whenever they can, until forced to stop in a court of law. Case in point: the La Cheapa case in the Netherlands, where an Australian manufacturer was mimicking the Deckers logos and trade dress. In other cases in the UK and Australia, counterfeiters selling boots by Aussie manufacturers that mimick the Deckers brands have not only been forced out of business, but forced to pay Deckers' costs and attorney fees, and even sent to prison. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle, whether intentionally or not, to enable such efforts to undermine Deckers, a company that appears to have followed the law very carefully in all instances. You may not like the fact that an Australian named Shane Steadman sold the rights to the word "UGG" to an American company, but it was all done in obedience to the law.

I don't feel this article is an advertisement. To the contrary, it appears to be an effort to promote the concept worldwide that "ugg boots" is a generic term, and undermine or dilute Deckers' trademark rights in that term. Regarding Wayne's description of the early versions of this article, the article could and did undermine Deckers without mentioning Australian firms, and that's exactly what I previously alleged. A genuinely NPOV article would recognize Deckers' overwhelming dominance in this market. They are approaching $1 billion in annual sales. I'm certain that all the Australian manufacturers combined wouldn't equal 5% of that. We can recognize that dominance in this article without making it into an advertisement. We have tried to do so, and we will continue to try to do so. A genuinely NPOV article would also describe in detail all court cases and IP authority cases worldwide where the "generic term" defense has been used against Deckers, since this is an article about the boot style worldwide, and since the Uggs-N-Ruggs case against Deckers in Australia has been reported with such affectionate attention to detail. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, counterfeit cases have no place in this article because they are not genuine generic defences. FYI, La Cheapa is a Dutch company not Australian. As far as I'm aware, no Australian companies have sold counterfeits. Australian boots sold overseas used their own logos that generally predated Deckers use. A genuinely NPOV article would recognize the UGG names generic origins and keep mention of brands to a minimum. I fail to see how 107 words about the Uggs-N-Ruggs case can be considered "reported with such affectionate attention to detail" when we have around 620 words (26% of article) about Deckers. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle, whether intentionally or not, to promote Deckers. Wayne (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW. There have been two court cases involving overseas companies counterfeiting Australian made UGGs (one was won by Mortels with the offender fined $430,000 while the Hunter Valley sheepskin company case is still in court). Neither of these are in the article and I do not support their inclusion. Do you want them included or are you only interested in getting the Deckers brand in? Wayne (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm interested in getting in any case where the "generic term" defense was used, including counterfeiting cases. It only seems appropriate, as I said, since the Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels case against Deckers has been described in great detail. This is an article about the boot style in the entire world after all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
How can anyone be expected to act respectfully and discuss any matter with you to reach a consensus when you cannot be respectful and publicly attack people who have been making and selling UGG boots long before Deckers even arrived on the scene... Gnangarra 06:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither case involves a generic defense as such a defense is indefensible in counterfeit cases which is why this defense is totally irrelevant in counterfeit prosecutions. The Uggs-N-Ruggs case did not involve counterfeiting so cant be used to justify the inclusion of irrelevant material. Generic defenses are relevant to this article while counterfeit cases are relevant to the Deckers article. You cant have your cake and eat it to. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the typo. I have corrected it to say "Uggs-N-Rugs." (It was very late here and my other writing projects seem to be bleeding over into this one.) Whether a generic term defense is appropriate in an Australian counterfeiting case or not, the law differs slightly from country to country. Unless Wayne can state that he is a trademarks attorney licensed to practice in Turkey, the Netherlands, China, the UK and the US (the venues of the cases I have in mind), and can link reliable online sources proving that what he's saying is true, I wouldn't be prepared to take his word for it regarding this obscure area of law. Regarding the La Cheapa case, yes: La Cheapa is a Dutch company. However, the reliable source clearly states that La Cheapa was importing an Australian-made boot from a firm located in Melbourne, Australia that had fake Deckers logos attached to the boots at the factory.
And yes, while it was a counterfeiting case, La Cheapa did involve several other aspects of trademark law such as infringement, trade dress and even copyright law, and a generic term defense was attempted.
According to the reliable online source.
So please find other grounds for your objection or withdraw it, Wayne. As we have been told several times, this is an article about ugg boots in the entire world, not just Australia. So any case in any country that involves a generic term defense should be described here. No country is any more important than Australia in this article. And no country is any less important than Australia either. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the Dutch court case: "4.4 Defendant La Cheapa alleges that UGG and the word Uggs are generic names and have been since 1933 the name for a type of boot. For this reason, the mark UGG is not protected. 4.5 This objection cannot succeed with respect to the mark UGG AUSTRALIA because this word is combined with the Deckers logo mark and the objection of defendant La Cheapa only concerns the word UGG."

According to the case record, La Cheapa claimed to have bought UGGs from three companies, two Australian manufacturers and Deckers themselves. La Cheapa said they could not remember the name one of the Australian companies but the other was "Jumbo UGGS" which had ceased trading earlier that year. The court did find it proven that La Cheapa did attempt to purchase Deckers UGG boots from several Deckers distribitors. La Cheapa were found to have made counterfeit Deckers boxes, logos, advertising material and a fake Deckers website. The UGGs from Jumbo had the logo "Jumbo UGGS" not the Deckers logo and these boots were treated separately to the counterfeits using the Deckers logo. (from here the text is complicated with legalese so I have simplified it, possibly too much so a Dutch speaker would be helpfull) Deckers claimed that "Jumbo UGGS" was a violation of their trademark under Article 2.20 paragraph 1 under c BVIE which involves consistency between a trademark and what the public expect. Deckers argued that the Deckers name was not well known in the Benelux region but that the name UGG was well known and was used only to describe Deckers boots. The court accepted that other brands using the UGG name in Benelux ( a region smaller than Ireland) would cause the public to assume that they were Deckers. La Cheapas total profit from sales was 686 euro and as the court found that only 80% of their UGG boot sales violated Deckers trademark they were ordered to pay Deckers 548 euros in damages. Deckers claim for damages for loss of sales was rejected. Deckers claimed its court costs were 25,291 euros and the court ruled that it would award proportional costs to both parties. Wayne (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with his previous performances surrounding another article, Wayne shovels an enormous pile of irrelevant details at us, thereby distorting and obscuring a few small key points that are actually relevant. Small key point: the generic term defense was in fact used in a counterfeiting case and as Wayne has admitted, "Generic defenses are relevant to this article." Another small key point: "treated separately to the counterfeits using the Deckers logo." Yet another small key point: "They could not name one of the [two] Australian companies." No sign of any boots manufactured by a non-Australian company. Simple, reasonable inference just from what Wayne himself has said: counterfeits using the Deckers logo were produced by an Australian company that could not be named. It is not my purpose to smear Australian manufacturers. But it is clear that at least one Australian manufacturer engaged in counterfeiting Deckers products, in an attempt to steal part of the enormous worldwide market that Deckers created, through hard work, savvy business strategy, huge financial investments, and obedience to the law in all jurisdictions. This attempted theft of part of the market for ugg boots (the boot style) is notable, and it is a significant part of the story of ugg boots (the boot style) worldwide. My purpose, and one would hope that all of you share this purpose, is to write an NPOV article that provides the whole story, obedient to all Wikipedia policies including WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, with a truly global perspective rather than an Australian one. We should not whitewash this as Wayne advocates. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, please refrain from making personal attacks to discredit my edits. The key point is that the court case supports my claim that the generic defense was indefensible and thus irrelevant. There is nothing in the case to make it notable enough to mention. BTW, the La Cheapa case involved the sale of 38 pairs of boots in total over 12 months (I assume 38 as the court mentions individuals purchasing boots, not pairs of boots). The court found that only the eight pairs of Jumbo boots, which were not counterfeits, were made in Australia. Wayne (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not accept your interpretation of the Dutch case. It's in Dutch, Wayne. And I've learned that you can't be trusted. An entire article was stubbed because admins couldn't sort out fact from fiction. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
For god's sake and the last time: This article is not about the brand and should not be misused as a cheap advertisement for Deckers.TMCk (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't being used as an advertisement for Deckers. It is, however, most likely being used to undermine Deckers' trademark rights. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If Deckers' trademark is so flimsily held that the mere existence of an article on Wikipedia explaining the history of the style before Deckers entered the market is any sort of threat to said trademark, then perhaps Deckers don't have as great a claim to the trademark that you seem to think they do. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you asserting that the editors who have disagreed with your point of view are here to push some kind of commercial advantage? Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
He's asserted this in the past -- odd, really, considering he's the one repeatedly bringing up "trademark rights" as some sort of fundamental truth which should be upheld by Wikipedia. If US courts declare tomorrow that the sky is, in fact, the exact shade of a particular crayola crayon, should every mention of the colour of the sky in Wikipedia be slanted to "protect Crayola's trademark rights". So, we've got one person who wants to "protect Decker's trademark rights" and a group of people who want to protect reality as it actually is. Who is being POV here? Who is closest to a conflict of interest? I'd also be curious to know why Phoenix has continuously edited this article without consensus and why even the very strong simple majority we have presenting opinions opposed to his (His change to the lead which was locked in should, rightly be reverted the moment this page is unlocked - but can anyone see this happening without a colossal bunfight?) is insufficient to prevent his edits or make changes largely agreed upon by the contributors to this article? The fact that the simple majority rarely makes significant edits without an absolute majority and that the minority regularly makes edits should demonstrate to everyone here who is acting in good faith so this encyclopaedic article can be as useful and logical as possible and who is here to "oppose undermining of Deckers' trademark rights"? Should people for whom protecting a trademark is a driving factor even be editing the articles in question?Mandurahmike (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"If US courts declare tomorrow that the sky is, in fact, the exact shade of a particular crayola crayon ..." That would most definitely be a minority view per WP:WEIGHT. But in this case, we have the IP authorities of 145 countries (not just one). That's the mainstream or majority view per WP:WEIGHT. Policy is more important than consensus on the Talk page of one article, Mike, because policy represents the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. I can't think of a more clear-cut case of mainstream vs. minority than 145 countries (including all the most heavily populated ones) vs. two tiny countries. Now, regarding "reality as it actually is," opinion polling from outside Australia and New Zealand was introduced in federal court in the United States. The overwhelming majority recognized "Ugg boots" as a brand name. That's "reality as it actually is" outside of Australia and New Zealand, Mike. Regarding the lede, it's a violation of WP:NPOV to fail to provide the "it's a trademark" viewpoint greater weight than the "it's a generic term" viewpoint. WP:NPOV is the single most important policy at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"the IP authorities of 145 countries"... Show us the reliable sourcing for that assertion that you have so far been unable to show. So far you have been able to show that Deckers have a trade mark in one (1) country, with the additional 144 you claim being sourced either to a paper-thin tissue of novel synthesis and original research, or to a home-made PDF someone has uploaded onto a free hosting site. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source[1] for that, Dave. But it's easily confirmed with a rudimentary search at the WIPO website. The reliable source also cites survey evidence indicating that "the UGG [trade]mark had a high level of recognition." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
That can not even remotely be considered a reliable source, being as it is a blog entry on a lawyer's web site. As per this: [2], if such a source is not good enough for other editors to use, it is not good enough for you to use. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
But this is not the Owner of the UGG trademark article, and listing primary sources that claim "X owns brand Y in country Z" is just non-encyclopedic crud. The reason there is no article on who owns the UGG trademark is that the topic fails WP:N, and while a mention here is desirable, it is a misuse of Wikipedia to unduly expand that topic (if it is notable, make a separate article on all the court cases). Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't just "X owns brand Y in country Z," John. You're oversimplifying and being dismissive. If I may extend your analogy, in each case the ownership of brand Y has been challenged in the courts or the IP authority of country Z, by some other company we'll call Q. As a matter of public record, Q has claimed that brand Y is in fact a generic term. And the authorities of country Z told Q to bugger off. Furthermore, Q has been ordered to pay the court costs of X. And in some cases, officers of Corporation Q have been thrown in prison. It's part of the story of the worldwide attempts to define Y as a generic term. These attempts have succeeded in country A, and there would be an enormous bunfight if anyone tried to remove the story of the historic defeat of X in country A, and brand Y's removal from country A's trademark registry. But this is an article about the boot style Y in the entire world, including all the countries that are represented by "Z," not just country A. I will again respectfully ask everyone to stop switching positions from "it's only about Australia" to "it's about the entire world" and back, in your efforts to exclude material you don't like, and include and expand upon material you like. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
NO, this article is still about a generic name for sheepskin boots (ugg boots). Deckers didn't change that.TMCk (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It's about the boot style. In all countries of the world. Including Turkey, the Netherlands, China, the UK and the United States, where the generic term defense is being used (or has recently been used) in court (or IP authority proceedings). Since the Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels case is in the Wikipedia article, the other cases are in the Wikipedia article as well. No country is any more or less important than any other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Coca-Cola is a trademark yet Cola is generic. UGG Australia is a trademark and Ugg is generic. Because Ugg boots were not sold overseas the foreign public remained ignorant of the name until Deckers sold them. Through ignorance they assume that Deckers invented the name and Deckers spend a lot of money to sereptitiously reinforce that belief. Coca-Cola would do exactly the same if they could get away with it but unfortunately for them Cola was already a well known name. If Coca-Cola could find a country where Cola was unknown they could prosecute any company there that used the name Cola for a drink despite it being generic in the rest of the world, because the public in that country would associate Cola only with Coke. That is the same reasoning Deckers uses to win it's infringement cases. This article is the equivalent of the Cola article where Coke gets minimal mention. Wayne (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. "Ugg boots" hasn't even been declared a generic term by an Australian court. In all other countries of the world except New Zealand, "Ugg boots" is understood to refer to a brand, not a style. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Cola hasn't been declared a generic term by an Australian court, nor an American one for that matter, so your point is? Wayne (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, "Ugg boots" is understood to refer to a brand in only 145 countries. There are another 112 countries where Deckers is unknown as a brand. I can even take the Coca-Cola analogy further. Coke is a registered trademark of Coca-Cola throughout the United States, yet it is still recognised as a generic term in New Mexico and parts of Indiana, Nevada, Utah Wyoming and Alaska. Trademark infringement would succeed elsewhere as the public would expect to get Coca-Cola if they asked for a coke but it would fail in those locations because U.S. courts have ruled that public perception always takes precedence over trademark protection. Wayne (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're correct, 145 to 112 still clearly defines "it's a generic term" as a minority view per WP:WEIGHT, particularly considering the populations of these countries. For example, in all 10 of the most populated countries in the world (such as China, India, Russia, the US and Brazil), it's trademarked. However, these 112 countries are not part of Australian culture, are they? We're talking about tiny Third World countries like Rwanda, Belize, Suriname, Grenada and Barbados. Look at this objectively. For the inhabitants of such countries, bogans and westies might as well be living on another planet, and surely they're beyond the reach of Deckers marketing efforts. If we ask them, "What is an ugg boot?" They won't say "It's a boot style" or "It's a brand name." They'll say, "I don't know." In the absence of polling data or any other reliable evidence, proving one way or the other that the people who live there understand "ugg boots" to be a brand or a boot style, the only reasonable way to consider these countries in an objective WP:WEIGHT analysis is to treat them as "undecided." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an attorney, just wanted to share these facts:

See: http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20100628-trio-jailed-over-fake-ugg-boot-operation.html

& "Still trading" and a member of the Australian Sheepskin Association Jumbo Ugg Boots http://www.jumbougg.com.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

& Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Clickcorp Pty Ltd (Chic Empire - Another Australian Sheepskin Association Member) http://news.priorsmart.com/deckers-outdoor-v-clickcorp-pty-l4v4/--Cowboysforever (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the section we're talking about here - this has nothing to do with this article. It's very clearly about copying of Deckers "Ugg TM" designs and logos. No one is being jailed just for calling non-deckers boots "ugg boots".Mandurahmike (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
To the contrary, Mike. A few people have been jailed for persisting in calling non-Deckers boots "ugg boots" after being ordered by a judge to stop. (Of course, they were also trying to sell the boots.) Also, there are a few Australian boot manufacturers — not all, but some — who are trying to steal part of the enormous market for ugg boots (the boot style) that Deckers has created. The Netherlands La Cheapa case was one example, and It's part of the worldwide story of ugg boots (the boot style). It's interesting, it's notable, it's ironic, and since we have such a large amount of article space devoted to Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels v. Deckers (a humiliating defeat for Deckers), it seems only fair that we should mention a few humiliating defeats for Aussie boot manufacturers. It's a double edged sword, Mike. It cuts both ways. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't care who was and wasn't "humiliated" - counterfeiting Deckers designs is a completely different topic. I'm absolutely bewildered that you are unable to grasp this. The only reason to include counterfeiting is if you want to cast moral aspersions against the companies doing so, and by proxy, undermining the morality of their claims - it's sidetracking by use of an extremely tenuously linked situation.Mandurahmike (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If ugg boots (the boot style) hadn't been made so enormously popular worldwide through Deckers marketing efforts, certain unscrupulous individuals (some of whom reside in Australia) wouldn't be trying to copy the Deckers logo and styles. This is definitely a very notable part of the worldwide story of ugg boots (the boot style). I notice upon reading the Deckers complaint against Chic Empire that it alleged infringement of a design patent, not a trademark. So this is most definitely about the boot style, Mike. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get the Chic Empire info? Deckers legal reports are current to 26 Aug 2011 and there is no mention of it and there is also nothing on the web. In regard to counterfeiting, The vast majority are Chinese companies and even American counterfeits vastly outnumber any possible Australian. I say possibly because Deckers consider any use of the word Ugg as a counterfeit and except for the case of the Russian couple in Melbourne I cant find any Australian case of logo counterfeiting.Wayne (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Dutch La Cheapa case involved the counterfeiting of Deckers logos by an Australian manufacturer. It's interesting that you try to describe these people in the Vaysman case as Russian. They were manufacturing fake Deckers boots in Melbourne, Australia and I suspect that like many people of foreign ancestry, they have Australian citizenship. The Chic Empire info is easily obtained using a simple Google search, which I've started doing periodically. One of the many IP law reporting sites that mention the Chic Empire case has a PDF of the complaint filed by Deckers, which explains that it alleges infringement of a design patent. Design patents are intended to protect against companies that mimic the appearance (style) of the product. So the case is about the boot style, not the trademark, and your customary objection does not apply here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I cant find the IP law reporting website that you are citing which mentions Chic Empire so can you post it? I find it strange that Deckers do not mention it on their legal reporting page, is this a case that has not been made public by Deckers yet? The La Cheapa case did not involve Australian counterfiets. La Cheapa bought counterfeits from China (that had the Deckers logo) but the court documents are clear that the uggs bought from Jumbo had the logo "Jumbo Uggs". The court ruled that Deckers could not be compensated for the sale of those as they were not counterfeits. Basically, the boots were sold legally to a company that then onsold them. The Vaysmans set up a company where Leonid Mykhalovski made counterfeits, the three are described in media here as criminals not legitimate manufacturers and the company apparently never made real uggs. The Australian Federal court ordered they cease production in 2003, 2005 and again in 200. They were prosecuted for contempt of court in 2008. The more I search the less reason I find to mention counterfeits at all in this article. Wayne (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bump - Bilby (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has edited this section with any constructive content since November 10, two and one-half months ago. Furthermore, this RfC was never properly registered for comment at WP:RFC. I suggest that the RfC should be closed with a finding of no consensus for removing the cases. Any objections? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again your idea of consensus is bewildering. We have two votes for keep (one is a SPA) and every other editor has put forward reasons for not including irrelevant court cases. That there has been no formal vote is irrelevant as consensus is clear from comments. Wayne (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unlocked

I notice that the article is now unlocked. I have a draft copy of the article in my sandbox where I have attempted to address the concerns made on this talk page. Apart from some of the history section the changes I have made are per the consensus achieved so far, but of course the wording is mine so is open for modification. The diff between the current article and the draft can be seen here. As people will be making edits to the current article now, I suggest everyone check my draft and comment on whether it should replace the current version (before too many changes are made so we can move on) or alternatively what from the draft can be used. Please comment on any concerns you may have. Wayne (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples of ugg being capitalized as Ugg there; are those intentional? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Wayne (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after nosing around a bit, I ran across an editor's sandbox draft that accomplishes that perfectly. In my opinion, their draft is also a good start towards making the article more readable and streamlining some of the excessive trademark dispute detail. What I like about WLRoss's draft is that it helps clarify how the term "Ugg boots" is defined differently in AU/NZ from the rest of the world, and it does a good job of summarizing the subject's early origins and connections to those countries surf and bogan cultures, which I think is appropriate. It also solves the issue of how to treat the Australian Sheepskin Association's concerns about fakes by putting it in context within the "Design" section. All of this makes WLRoss's draft a good jumping-off point to bring sorely-needed improvements to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have copy/pasted the above comment from the first section of this page as it relates to this discussion and as a comment by an editor with no involvement in the article (outside eyes) it is particulary relevant.Wayne (talk)
Yes, I do think your draft is an improvement in terms of overall readability and consolidating various accumulated cruft. I was going to be bold and edit in the changes, but I see from the article history there's been a lot of conflict. So I'll ask if anyone has any objections to it first. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, since Salix closed the RFC and removed the ASA section, I went ahead and made some basic improvements. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Louie, the focus of this article should be on the whole world market, not AU/NZ. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The focus should be Australia and New Zealand first, then fill in with other countries. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(From a previously uninvolved editor...) It seems to me that between this article and UGG Australia, both the AU/NZ and the rest-of-the-world markets are reasonably covered. Both articles cover the history and the current situation, although from slightly different viewpoints, as befits the differences in the intent of the two articles. Possibly some of the repeated content should be in one of the articles with a pointer to there in the other article, but damned if I know which one to start with. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Then let's stop misleading people with the title. It should read Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand. And the hatnote should read, "This article is about the ugg boot style in Australia and New Zealand. For the ugg boot style in the rest of the world, see UGG Australia." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You're just getting more and more disruptive with your comments and pointy edits (and recent move) that you keep timely apart far enough to not get in trouble by simple wp policy but sooner than later you'll end up at ANI for your disruptive and promotional editing.TMCk (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede at the moment is much better than it has been; however, I am a bit concerned with the contradictory nature of the last sentence there. "In the rest of the world..... 145 countries worldwide". 145 countries does not equal "the rest of the world". I'd prefer the use of a word such as "elsewhere" rather than "the rest of the world" or "In many places outside of their countries of origin" - some way that doesn't claim that there are other places where ugg is a generic term, but which isn't claiming UGG is a trademark in every other nation in the world.Mandurahmike (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Yes, that was my copyediting attempt to concisely summarize how AU/NZ is a significant contrast to most of others, i.e. 145 countries out of 190-something. But you're right, "the rest" implies "all", so maybe a more exacting phrase to get across that contrast is "in much of the world" or "in most of the rest of the world". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Important Trademark Error

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

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

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

Can someone correct this error?--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the error. Now reads true and correct "Smith set up Ugg Holdings Inc. and in 1985 registered a US trademark on a rams head logo with the words "Original UGG Boot UGG Australia."--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Trademark law in the United States

I've added this section to clarify how a generic term can be trademarked in the United States. The cases mentioned have been specifically cited by the courts in the Ugg infringment cases and this is referenced so is not synth. I feel this section should curtail some arguements regarding genericity. Wayne (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a lengthy section explaining US Trademark Law is necessary, and it actually serves to worsen an article that is already overburdened by massively undue weight given to the trademark disputes. Even if we agreed that readers could benefit by an in depth explication of how US trademark law works, a link to US trademark law would be all that's required. Also, content is generally not added for the purpose of "curtailing arguments". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Louie that all this rhetoric about trademarks is (and has for several months) completely unbalanced the article. I suggest that the article be rebalanced to be more of an article about what ugg boots actually are and less of an advertisement for one American manufacturer of the boganwear in question. I suggest a short paragraph about the trademark cases and if any trademark case is actually considered worthy of going into in depth then start up a new article entitled something like Ugg boots trademark controversy. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea and per WP:BOLD I have created the article Ugg boots trademark disputes and reduced the trademark section in this article to a summary. Check them out and see if they do the job. Comments welcome. I have no problem with total reversion if consensus dictates that I went overboard. Wayne (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a significant improvement to the article. If I get time tonight will try to tidy up the remaining article (I already see a few things that could be worded much better). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Good solution Wayne, but seeing as the topic already exists at Deckers Outdoor Corporation#Trademark Dispute, I've redirected it there to avoid unnecessary duplication. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a few problems with having a redirect. The dispute is only a small section in the Deckers article and that is written with a pro-Deckers slant. A dedicated article can be more detailed and much more NPOV. I doubt strict neutrality would be possible in the manufacturers article considering the problems we have had with the trademark disputes in this one. Wayne (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the solution here most keeping with our policies is to work to bring the section at Deckers Outdoor Corporation#Trademark Dispute in line with NPOV - rather than have different versions of the same content at Ugg boots, UGG Australia - and now a new POV fork that's been created at Ugg boots trademark disputes. I realize the copyright issue is a controversial topic, so if you're unsure of how to proceed, we can get wider input from one of the noticeboards regarding how to handle the problem of 3 different versions of the same information in 3 different articles. More eyes and more opinions never hurts. Cheers - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There should only be one place where the issue is covered in detail. I would think the proper place is Ugg boots trademark disputes, and both the Decker article and the Ugg articles can point to there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, if the trademark disputes are not sufficiently notable to have an article to themselves, the most logical place for them to be expanded upon would be UGG Australia, the article on the trademark in question. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Wider input from one of the noticeboards has been tried and failed as the arguments are usually about inclusion and exclusion (or sometimes misrepresentation) which is often subjective. More eyes and more opinions has also been tried and had some success but made little difference to the edit warring by pro-Deckers editors. Merging would make the UGG Australia article too long and invite edit warring. A dedicated article allows greater detail which removes the most often used editing claims that the wording favours one or the other products. Notability of the dispute is undoubted in Australia where the dispute has been followed by the media, been the subject of two documentaries and has also been brought up in Parliament. In America and the rest of the world it is probably not notable at all, but as a global encyclopedia, notability in Australia should be enough. Wayne (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The referenced Ugglebo Vs Deckers case was dismissed in December 2011. See: http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That site has the court case listed but no results. The page says "No Results Found." Wayne (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


You must not be searching correctly. Put in "Deckers" to search the case and you will find it. Under the documents you will see the latest doccuments which state "Dismissed"--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Found it by going into the section you have to pay to access. It says "voluntary dismissal" only eight days after the case was filed. I'm not going to buy it to check but I think this means an agreement between the parties was reached. The case needs to be deleted. Wayne (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a bit of a break from working on this article, I come back and I find that it's a dream come true for any Australian manufacturer wishing to exploit the worldwide market developed by Deckers. One trademark dispute — the one Deckers lost — is explored with an affectionate attention to detail. All the other cases — all the cases Deckers won, including a case against an Australia-based counterfeiter — are dismissed with a single, vague sentence. There's plenty of room in this article for all these cases, but if all the cases Deckers won should go to a different article, then the single case Deckers lost should join them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand where you got explored with an affectionate attention to detail as the case has been reduced from 316 words to 184 words since you last edited. Per consensus there actually is no room in this article so the cases were moved to a new article, see Ugg boots trademark disputes. I doubt any Australian manufacturer is turning cartwheels as the move has not given anyone any commercial advantage. You need to remember that this article is the history of Ugg boots and is not meant to be a subpage of Deckers. Wayne (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wayne, you looked at the wrong case (their are two). The first was "Dismissed" shortly after filing and and the 2nd was "dismissed" in December. There are three reffernces on Wikipedia and so they all need to be updated or deleter. Additionally, Phoenix is correct. Deckers have won every case outside of Australia and their is way too much information about the two Australian cases. Can these be modified to just show the highlights vs a blow by blow description of the cases?--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I already said that the Ugglebo case should be deleted. There is only one "Australian" case mentioned in this article and it is now only half the size it was originally. I think you are confusing it with the new article where the American case is 573 words compared to 316 for the Australian while the two other Australian court cases are covered in paragraphs of only 122 and 89 words respectively which is hardly a blow by blow account. Wayne (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wayne. But the determination by Aervanath was as follows: "The concensus reached was to exclude the court cases." The determination was NOT "The concensus reached was to exclude the court cases, except for the one that Wayne and the other Australian editors want to keep in because it makes Deckers look bad." Since you want to rely on Aervanath's decision, you are stuck with its precise wording. As you said, per consensus there is actually no room in the article; and 184 words is a great deal more than zero. Accordingly, I have removed the fluff about the Uggs-N-Rugs case and reduced it to the minimum amount of descriptive words necessary for this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The determination refered only to court cases involving counterfeits per the section heading. The Uggs-N-Rugs case was not a counterfeit case so I have reverted you. The consensus for the current version is in this section. When I said there was "no room in the article" I was refering to keeping "all" the cases that you wanted mentioned which is clear from the discussion in this section. Can you please explain to me how having details about the case in this article makes Deckers look bad? The limited detail is needed for a reader to understand what the dispute is about. Anyone reading your prefered version would not even realise that there was a serious dispute at all. As the findings only applied to Australia Deckers came out looking pretty good. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand

I think this is a case of Wikipedia promoting a dispute where there isn't one. A Google Books search of "ugg boots" "new zealand" returns the Northwestern journal of international law & business article cited by Wikipedia ("Their [ugg boots] origin is much disputed, but it is suggested that they originated in rural Australia in the 1920s."), and a handful of others which are clearly derived from the Wikipedia article. "ugg boots" australia has over 4,000 more results with detailed histories on the Australian origins of the ugg boot. - 121.215.18.2 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit by LuckyLouie

A recent, extensive edit per WP:BOLD by LuckyLouie has been reverted with an edit summary claiming that it "contains too many errors." If the editor who reverted it would like to discuss each individual error that he believes to exist, that's what the Talk Page is for. I think that it's a good edit, so I've restored it. The actual origin of the term "ugg boot" has always been disputed, and even a reliable Australian source has described Shane Stedman as the "inventor" of ugg boots. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As the edits layout, grammar, unexplained deletions and unneccessary duplications had also reduced readability it was far more productive to revert. There were so many errors it would have taken hours to correct. Interestingly many of the errors are pro-Deckers so I'm not surprised you support it. Stedman is the only source for the claim that he invented them in 1971. The same design was widely available from flea markets in the 1960s. All he invented was the "Ugh" name and was perhaps the first to sell them on a commercial scale. Wayne (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Frank Mortel is the only source for the claim that he invented the term "ugg boots" in 1958. Bruce MacDougall is the only source for the claim that he invented the term "ugg boot" in the 1970s. Which of the three Australians (Mortel, MacDougall or Stedman) should we believe? Even the Aussies themselves can't agree on the original author of the term. The headline of the Sydney Morning Herald refers to "Ugg inventor Shane Stedman." [3] Since the origins of the term and design are disputed, the treatment by LuckyLouie seems very fair to me. I've taken the time to correct some of the grammar and punctuation, without a large scale revert of what seems to be a basically good and well intentioned "fresh look" by a previously uninvolved editor. I encourage you to take the same approach. Neither Stedman, nor Mortel, nor MacDougall should be treated as the one source Wikipedia trusts in this matter. This should just be reported as what it is: the origins of the design and the term are disputed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

MacDougall and Mortel only claimed to have invented the name ugg. Stedman claimed to have invented the boot on a date AFTER they were already known to have existed. Stedman's claim is therefor unsupportable and not notable. Wayne (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Sydney Morning Herald described him in its headline as "Ugg inventor Shane Stedman." I encourage you to write a sternly worded letter to the editor. It is a reliable source. It is Australian, free from any American bias and it is notable. We cannot substitute our own judgment regarding notability and reliability for the judgment of a fact-checked reliable source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing, sorry for not addressing this earlier. What's "know to have existed" were sheepskin boots. See the Wikipedia article, Sheepskin boots. The archaeologists have dug up some Chinese gentleman from several centuries BC who was buried in a pair of sheepskin boots. Sheepskin boots are "known to have existed" for more than 2000 years. What's most definitely not "known to have existed" is the unique sheepskin boot style known as the classic ugg boot. The origins of this style are disputed. We have reliable sources that conflict with one another regarding its origins. And that's how we should report these facts at Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles says, "Countering this, Shane Stedman has stated in interviews that he invented the ugg boot in 1971", but his statement fails to "counter" the per-existence of uggs. I think the wording should be: (description of earlier uggs) Nonetheless, Shane Stedman has stated..." Binksternet (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wayne, having the article report that various people made conflicting claims and statements is part of this topic's history. Not everything has to be seen through a "pro or anti Deckers" filter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the quotes from the Deckers founder also be added? (See below). This greatly conflicts with Stedmans claims and seems to agree with much of the articles history. --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Stedman

We have a problem with the Stedman claims. I have found a longer version of the 2011 interview and it makes several unsupportable claims.

We have editors insisting we include the Stedman claim so what do we do? Wayne (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two possible directions to go: delete contradictory bits and tell the reader only the established facts, or tell the reader all of the contradictions, attributing the sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
In regards to "inventing" I have found a mention that Stedman was the first to make uggs with hard soles. This could be what he means by inventing them as I know that uggs my ex owned had sheepskin soles and that hard soles were not available until the early 1970s.
I also found some interesting information. Apparently, after Doug Jensen left the company Brian Smith began sourcing his sheepskin from Jacksons tannery in Geelong. In the mid 1980s Jacksons began manufacturing Smiths uggs (with the Ugg Australia logo). In 1993 Smith began the first negotiations with Deckers and stopped importing the boots. In 1994, Jacksons changed their name to EMU Australia and marketed their uggs themselves. Although they never called their boots uggs, Deckers sued them in 2010 simply because their website said they originally manufactured uggs (which was true). Wayne (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is another good quote to add to the article from the Golden Fleece article (Wall Street Journal) where the founder of Deckers states:

"Otto’s interest in UGG sprang in large part from his unique proximity to the niche sheepskin boot market. A graduate of the University of Santa Barbara, he grew up surfing the beaches of Southern California, where Australian sheepskin boots—advertised simply as “ugg boots”—began showing up in surf magazines as early as 1970.

During the mid-’70s, Otto and his wife, a native of Sydney, made numerous trips to the beaches of Australia. Surfers there had been pulling on ugg boots when they came out of the water in winter since the ’60s. By that time, the boots had become a cold-weather staple—a comfortable but style-free necessity that was gratefully tossed under the bed at the first sign of warm weather. So when an American surfer named Brian Smith began showing up selling ugg boots at surf-wear tradeshows in 1978, Otto took notice."

Does seem to admit that the style and name was around before Brian Smith and that ugg boots name and style was around in Australia in the 1960s. Could Stedman have used the name "Ugh-Boots" as a clever variation of a well known style as his trademark? Seems to be the case and not at all uncommon to use a missspelling for trademark purposes.

i.e. - Nike - world famous trademark. Mike - common first name - Difference is that one letter was changed to make us a unique name that could be trademarked.

Seems to make sence of how and why Stedman was the only one to use "ugh" when everyone else used "ugg".

--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiguy1974, I don't think the 20th-century athletic shoe was named "Nike" as a trademark trick on the name "Mike". Nike has been the goddess of victory for a long time — she was already an ancient religious figure when a statue of her was placed in the Parthenon in the 5th century BCE — and her name was likely given to a new brand of competitive running shoe with that connection to victory in mind. (The editors of the Nike, Inc. article cite the same origin of the name.) Of course, that's just one fewer example, and the idea of making superficial changes to establish a unique trademark is still reasonable, e.g. for Ugg vs Ugh. 98.218.86.55 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article review

There is a GA review currently going on here for the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. If you are interested check it out and feel free to take part. If it's successful we can see about doing this article. Wayne (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should the Ugg boots trademark disputes article include all disputes involving Ugg boots?

Per WP:RFC I bring to your attention a RFC being conducted on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. Please comment/vote here.

An editor is suggesting that the article should not be restricted to the genericity dispute. He feels the article leans too heavily towards Australian boot manufacturers and their disputes with Deckers Outdoor Corporation and casts Deckers in a negative light when it should also include copyright and trade dress disputes Deckers have been involved in. Specifically counterfeits. Wayne (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently being reviewed for GA status and is on hold pending resolution of this RFC.Wayne (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

When Wayne created the Ugg boots trademark disputes article, it was for the agreed purpose of reducing the size of the Trademark Disputes section in this article, and he reduced the size of this section accordingly in March 2012. Since then, it has grown again, enormously. All functioning on the Uggs-N-Rugs case, and the Australian spin on that case. That material can go into the Ugg boots trademark disputes article, if it even belongs there due to WP:WEIGHT and notability considerations. Accordingly, I've trimmed the section back very gently, to roughly the size it reached when Wayne cut so much out of it in March 2012. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If it needs to be trimmed back then no hassles, but the trim needs to be a bit more balanced. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting style number to style name table

Some cocksucker keeps deleting the style number to style name table that I contributed. Looks like I will not be contributing any more to this POS Wikipedia garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.210.176 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 October 2013‎

Although the language this fellow used above, is a bit 'colourful,' I have to agree. I Think it is a good addition, why did you keep deleting it Bilby?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is not about any particular brand so style numbers are advertising here. Add them to the UGG AUSTRALIA article if you think them relevant. Wayne (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, and this article is not about specific brand, model, or style. The catalog codes have no purpose here other than marketing, and should be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
appreciating the two comments above, I have to agree with Barek and WLRoss on this one. I think that the addition of these items were inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. I think that Bilby's deletions of this particular editor's, perhaps misguided contribution, was also too rash. Appreciate Barek and WLRoss posting explanations to this editor, rather than deletion without discussion. Always good to discuss here too Bilby. This editor may have not been with the project as long as you? and may have just required some diplomacy and guidance on these pages? Just my thoughts for what they're worth.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit to Ugg boots

My purpose in making that edit was to restore the original consensus version. A later, unexplained and undiscussed edit reversed the order of the paragraph. It only makes sense that since the worldwide market is many times larger than the market in Australia and New Zealand, it is more notable and should be described first. Please revert yourself. 2602:306:C56F:500:C1A6:AE56:2B97:2A5A (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? Countering one unexplained and undiscussed edit, to content that's unsourced anyway, with another unexplained and undiscussed edit, is not a very helpful way to improve this encyclopaedia. Maybe you need to try to find a source for the basic claim, before the whole thing is removed as unsourced. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Checking the history of the article is easy but tedious. It appears a reliable source was originally provided from the Peoria Journal Star. 2602:306:C56F:500:C1A6:AE56:2B97:2A5A (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt very much that a local newspaper would pass muster for a claim about world-wide market share. - Nick Thorne talk 04:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Above conversation copied from user talk:HiLo48 - Nick Thorne talk 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not? They're a daily newspaper with a circulation of 65000. Please compare that with all the other publications now being used in the article as reliable sources, and also Wikipedia policy about reliable sources. 2602:306:C56F:500:C1A6:AE56:2B97:2A5A (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Nick, apparently you're conceding the point. " 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." 2602:306:C56F:500:ECE1:43D1:8E46:AAC (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. For the claim to be reliably sourced - a claim about worldwide market share - the source needs to be from somewhere that has an established reputation for reportage on international financial and commercial matters. Probably this would better off there were multiple sources for the claim. A single reference from one local paper does not cut the mustard. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN. - Nick Thorne talk 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Both versions contain the same claim - the bigger problem to me is that neither seems to meet WP:NPOV. An earlier version of the text simply stated: "Noteworthy manufacturers include Deckers, which reportedly has 95% of the worldwide market share; Luda Productions of Australia, which has roughly 75% of the market share in Australia..."; while the current wording states "outside Australia, the manufacturer of this style of footwear with a dominating share of the market share is Deckers, which reportedly has 95% of the worldwide market share".
I believe the original wording conveyed the same claims while better abiding by NPOV by avoiding the unsourced qualitative description of "a dominating share". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Barek, I don't mind removing the words "a dominating share," although how 95% fails to be dominating is hard to understand. Nick, if you can point to the words in the Reliable Source which state what you are claiming (that a well-established news outlet is insufficient source for a statement of fact if it's about worldwide market share), I'll concede that point as well, but otherwise I don't see any need for WP:RSN. The policy states plainly that it's a reliable source. 2602:306:C56F:500:CC14:7367:9FB2:14D0 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You are claiming that this source is reliable for the particular claim in question. I am challenging that. It is not up to me to disapprove the source, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back it up. It is always up to the one making the positive claim to back it up. As I said, if you want to use it, take it to RS/N. - Nick Thorne talk 11:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed claim, it has not yet been resolved at WP:RSN despite what the anon editor claimed in his edit summary. The removed text is as follows: 

By 2010, the production of Australian manufacturers combined equaled 5.9 percent of Deckers ugg boots sales.

Please do not re-insert the text until the RS discussion has reached a consensus. - Nick Thorne talk 02:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the source has been resolved. Consensus at WP:RSN, as well as Wikipedia policy, support the reliability of this source. Since the "disputed claim" is now a very, very close paraphrase of what the reliable source says, I don't see how it can be disputed in good faith any longer, Nick. Reliable 1too (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast sunshine. One post by one editor on the RSN page does not make a consensus. "Moving on" is all very well and good when a consensus has been reached but it takes more involvement that has occurred for any consensus to be established. Most of the discussion on the RSN page has been about issues of whether the source supports all the statements being made, not about the reliablity of the source itself. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to at least place a notice here that the discussion was being held before claiming that the reliability of the source has been established. To be honest, the way this has been done looks like someone was trying to pull a fast one. - Nick Thorne talk 00:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Article is still really confusing

Hey. This article is still really confusing. From what I was reading there is a difference between UGG branded boots, general ugg boots that originated from AU/NZ but then there is also just normal sheepskin boots that there is another article about (this one). So when this page should eb trying to help clear up all this confusion, its really just muddling everything together. Like when my sister went to Sydney, she tried to get me a legit Australian souvenir, so naturally we thought ugg boots would be it, and then when she gave them to me, we realized they weren't what everyone in America was wearing and tried to find out what that was all about and honestly this page confused us even more. Ive tried to make a couple edits that would make this clear because I feel like Im not the only one confused here, but my edits were undone and im not sure why if Im trying to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreerPedal7 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing? Though I understand your concerns somewhat, what exactly are you trying to do? Jppcap (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
yes, why rip material out of the article that helps explain the issue? Meters (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well Im trying to like reorganize information to make it more obvious that "ugg boots" are an Australian (and New Zealand i think) style of boots with their own terms and history, and then there are brand name versions of these like "Uggs" and Emu boots and Bearpaw etc, but then there are just normal sheepskin boots that other regions have had a history with and no one refers to them as "uggs" so I think this page is specifically discussing the AU/NZ regional term/concept where the general term for the sheepskin boot has its own article. Ive been trying to help but everything gets overturned by the time I look at it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreerPedal7 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the page is mostly formatted regionally, as you're discussing. However, there's a long history (see talk archives above) where COI/brands have attempted to skew information on this page. GreerPedal7, you should adhere to this before editing. I'll clean up, where applicable. Jppcap (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been on here longer than I wanted to be but I think the articles need to reflect that there is a much more generic worldly term for these all brands aside, its called sheepskin boots — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreerPedal7 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GreerPedal, sorry it's been frustrating for you. As Jppcap pointed out, the article has been a target of sustained edit conflict (between editors with an interest in profits from the ugg trademark outside Australia/NZ and editors with an interest in Australia/NZ cultural ownership) so it's not a simple topic. Thus the article necessarily involves some complexity. To my knowledge, general consensus was that ugg boots are a distinct style of sheepskin boots (a subset of all possible sheepskin boots if you like). And then the ugg boots bearing the UGG Australia brand are a subset of all possible ugg boots. If you have the will and the time, perhaps you could revise the article text to elucidate this point? If you can, then thank you in advance, as it's a difficult job to edit this article! Cheers Donama (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
More