Talk:UGG (brand)/Archives/2014

Russian Jews founders
Why is there no mention of the fact that UGG Australia was founded by Soviet Jewish immigrants (Luda and Roman Fishman)?--184.161.64.74 (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should there be? Find a reliable source that says they are, and why it's important that they are, and go from there. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Split this?
In the light of IP Australia's 2010 decision, effectively that, within Australia, Luda Productions Pty Ltd is the owner of "UGG AUSTRALIA". In particuar they concluded that, on the balance of evidence, Luda Productions Pty Ltd predate Dockers (then smith)'s use of the term UGG AUSTRALIA in any market by a year.

It leaves me wondering if there should be several pages, one for each of Dockers and Luda, and one for this trademark mess. This page becoming a choice list.

As it is, the opening section is going to need to clearly state that this UGG Australia should not be in any way confused with the other UGG Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagneya (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Has that case been settled? As far as I can tell, Luda was successful in September, but there was still room for Deckers to appeal, and the decision only allowed them to proceed to registration, presuming that there was no appeal or court action. My assumption is that Deckers would have appealed, and I don't have any evidence that the registration has been granted. As an aside, it has been split to some extent - the trademark debate is at Ugg boots. - Bilby (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia does not arrange articles to suit the latest developments in a legal struggle between competitors. If necessary (and that's a big if), this article could be renamed, or the lead altered to clarify the worldwide situation. Also, it is not clear that a separate article would satisfy the notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For worldwide view purposes perhaps there should be a dab link to the generic article "ugg boots" to take into account the many different ouftfits now using "UGG Australia" in some form in Australia since the decision that the mark is generic. It might be useful for a consumer who might be researching what they have seen advertised or have purchased.

Irrelevance
This paragraph:


 * The Australian Trade Marks Office, IP Australia cautions:


 * "A trade mark registered under Australia's trade mark laws only provides rights for trade within Australia's borders. Trade mark laws are national laws and each country registers and protects trade marks within their own jurisdiction. ... The Internet provides easy access to global markets and takes no account of national borders. If you are trading on the Internet you need to understand the laws of the country into which you are selling goods or services. If you place an offer for sale on the Internet in Australia that invites purchase from overseas, this can amount to trading overseas and could leave you vulnerable to legal action and expensive litigation. Likewise an overseas proprietor selling goods in Australia via the Internet may infringe an Australian trade mark."[31]

misrepresents the lengthy quote as something which is relevant to counterfeiting, but it isn't, it is a generic statement relating to the law. Was this put here by a Deckers employee as a sort of warning sign to Australian ugg boot manufacturers? It's certainly not relevant to an encyclopaedia article, which should not be used as a warning notice by the company that is the subject of the article. Request delete. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)