Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/Archive 1

Koolaburras Australian Trademarks
Koolaburra does not have any australian trademarks containing ug, UGG or ugh.--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The court transcript specifically mentions the judges statement about not addressing Koolaburra's australian trademarks. Thus it is irrelevant whether they have any or not as the court ruling was that if they have such trademarks they would not infringe Deckers trademark. As they are an American company I doubt it would be economical to manufacture separate labelling for Australia so this may be why they dont. Wayne (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If the court doccument say "Koolaburra's australian trademarks" then the current language of "Koolaburra's "Ug" trademarks in Australia" is not correct or factual. --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugglebo Vs Deckers
This case was Dismissed in December of 2011. See:http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That site has the court case listed but no results. The page says "No Results Found." Wayne (talk) 08:58, 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) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Same result. Nothing. Wayne (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tag
I've added a globalize tag to the section about US copyright law. Reading the article, it appears that this article is about a global dispute that is taking place in several countries around the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, the article should be written from a global point of view, stating the position in each country where the dispute is taking place. The US is clearly one of those countries, and a very important one, but not the only one. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead explains the situation worldwide. The dispute is basically Australian only as the findings of the main court cases listed have "settled" the issue in other jurisdictions. The last paragraph of the first section tells the reader why cases keep coming up. This dispute is rehashed on a semi-regular basis in Australian media so remains somewhat current and has resulted in MPs not only giving speeches in Parliament on the subject but in MPs wearing them into Parliament to highlight the issue. Outside of Australia, I doubt if the dispute raises an eyebrow outside of Deckers corporate office. Wayne (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
Looking through the tone of the dispute above it is unclear to me whether any of the participants have any conflicts of interest in this article subject - in particular whether anyone is connected to any company that is manufacturing boots under the name "UGG". It would be helpful if people could clarify this below. If you are, WP:PSCOI gives a good overview of the best approach to take. For the record I have no such connection. Thanks. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Don't use that. That is simply an essay with advice from a number of editors. This is a matter that should only be directed to our actual behavioral guideline which is WP:COI.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No COI here. This makes roughly four times that I've been asked. I just bought a pair of Deckers UGGs several years ago for my wife (she's now my ex-wife), and she's still wearing them and they still look great. You should have seen the Ugg boots article when I first started working on it. It was a hit piece against Deckers. For the first 2/3 of the article, it was as though Deckers and the UGG brand didn't even exist — even though Deckers has 95% of the world market share for ugg style boots. (Imagine an article about disk operating systems that mentioned a lot of other manufacturers and their products, but failed to mention Microsoft Windows.) Then for most of the final 1/3 of the article, Deckers was made to appear to be a corporate bully that has never won a court case. The whole family of articles has improved tremendously since those days, but there's still a lot of work to do, and a lot of resistance to it. I believe that certain interests had that article the way they wanted it (as a hit piece against Deckers), and were dismayed when the article started to take a more neutral tone. That's where to look for a COI on these articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you chose that version, as your first edit to the article wasn't until 2010,, over 7 months later. By that stage the article was looking very different. However, while there have been some COI editors passing through, on the whole the problems in the disputes have been more cultural - with some editors viewing ugg boots as having a cultural significance in Australia and New Zealand with a David vs Goliath battle against a big US corporation, while other editors have tended to take Decker's side. Although COI has been a problem, I'm not sure it was a core one. - Bilby (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilby. Fancy meeting you here. When I created this account, I announced at Talk:Ugg boots that I'd been editing from various IP addresses for years. Perhaps you missed that. If I'm not mistaken, I made my first edit to Ugg boots shortly after the version that I linked above was created, from an AT&T IP address in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The anti-Deckers bias at that time was appalling. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I disagree that there was a major anti-Deckers bias at that point. There was a focus on the trademark dispute, but no company - Deckers or otherwise - was mentioned by name outside of the trademark dispute section. Using your analogy, it would be like an article on Operating Systems which spoke about them in general, without mentioning an specific Operating Systems in the discussion. Leaving out Deckers did make a hole, and the trademark dispute section is a bit biased towards Australian manufactures, but describing it as a hit piece is over the top.
 * That said, the main issue here isn't the state of the article in 2009, but the extent of COI editing, which I don't believe has been the core problem with the article. It may have been, but the known COI editors are not key players, and there is no solid evidence that anyone else has had a COI. Just a lot of allegations being thrown around on all sides. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * a bit biased towards Australian manufactures, but describing it as a hit piece is over the top. Just "a bit"? Try this version. Or this one, vigorously defended by an Australian editor. A year later this version. Another four months later, this version, just as virulently hostile to Deckers, was still being vigorously defended by the same Australian editor. Any edits that diluted the venom against Deckers were quickly reverted. This went on for years, Bilby. It may not be the main issue. But it's an issue. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given your own edits to non-English Wikipedias in regard to ugg boots, I don't think anyone here is in a position to really try and argue about whether any given version of the articles are ideal. At this point, the focus should be on what we do to provide proper coverage now, as opposed to whether or not the articles have always been balanced. I don't see much value in discussing whether or not a six year old version of the article was neutral. Those are not the versions under discussion. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite being warned about canvassing in previous ANIs and again recently on his talk page, USER:Phoenix and Winslow has continued to do so and has incorrectly reframed the question to those editors as a legal definition despite being repeatedly informed that the title of this article is not the legal term, but the name commonly used for the genericity dispute which is used correctly per WP:TITLE. P&W has also transcluded favourable comments on his talk page as "Support" votes here. If these editors wanted to vote they would do so themselves. P&W has also altered text in two related articles to support claims he has made for this one. Phoenix and Winslow has active accounts on the German, Spanish, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian and Swedish Wikipedia's. None of these accounts have made any edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot related articles and all edits are promotional in favour of Deckers. Considering the time and effort that has been put into filibustering (the last NPOVN P&W brought [to make Deckers the focus of all ugg related articles] ran to 93 pages despite P&W being virtually the only editor supporting), canvassing, forum shopping and editing against consensus in ugg related topics over the last three years, I must ask whether his connection to Deckers goes further than he has detailed. Wayne (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For transparency: My only connection to ugg boots is that my wife bought a pair in 1972. Wayne (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hum...those various checkusers never made any concrete connection to Phoenix...you need to be careful about false accusations or even about false innuendo. If you think you have a case worthy of arbcom, then I suggest you open one, where the contributions history of all named editors can be scrutinized. Otherwise, you should avoid false accusations and innuendo. This is a content dispute, nothing more.--MONGO 15:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for confirming this. I hope you don't mind me raising this issue - I'm sure this article is relevant to various commercial interests so I think it's in the interests of Wikipedia that we are all very open about this question. To be clear, I have not come across anything to make me believe that any active editor in this dispute has any COI. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots?
Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots?Wayne (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 05:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This RFC has been publicized on the Ugg boots Talk page per WP:RFC guidelines.Wayne (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor has already admitted that "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: As several reliable sources (linked on the Talk page above) have noted, counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, therefore at least one example of a counterfeiting case should be included in Ugg boots trademark disputes. The lede of the Counterfeit consumer goods article also identifies counterfeiting as trademark infringement, not copyright or trade dress. Let's get our terminology correct and then proceed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And clearly, this RFC was started on the wrong board. It should be under "Politics, Government, and the Law" since it is a legal question. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Should the Ugg boots trademark disputes article include example cases of counterfeit consumer goods? Is the counterfeiting of brand name goods a "trademark dispute" when the counterfeiters are taken to court? Also, an editor has claimed that the introduction of example cases of counterfeiting "dilute" the discussion about whether the word "UGG" is a generic term, and therefore ineligible for trademark protection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "UGG" is not a generic term, and several trademarks exist for the term UGG. It is clearly a mark that is recognized. bad boy jamie    talk 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether counterfeiting of brand name goods is a "trademark dispute" or not is totally irrelevant to this article. As has been explained to you many many times and is also explained in the article itself, the title of this article is not the legal term, but the name commonly used for the genericity dispute and is used correctly per WP:TITLE. Listing the dispute in another forum is forum shopping. Wayne (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

'''NOTE: User:Phoenix and Winslow has canvassed a large number of editors to take part in this RFC. In his posts he has incorrectly reframed the RFC as "a question of law" or has asked editors to vote "Support if you believe counterfeiting is a trademark dispute" in violation of Canvassing. Please note that the article title is not the legal term, but the name commonly used for the genericity dispute.''' Wayne (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

'''Further note re. canvassing'''. User:Phoenix and Winslow keeps canvassing while keeping his posts non-neutral. By now it is also clear that his doing amounts to mass-canvassing and should be taking in consideration when closing this RFC. Also administrate action against this user should be considered but I myself will resist in doing so. (Note to mentioned user: Since it seems to have some importance to you considering some of your past posts, I'm not Australian but American.)TMCk (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose, the Ugg boots trademark dispute has been and remains a notable dispute, including counterfeits (a copyright dispute) would water down this article, leaving it as little more than another Deckers Outdoor Corporation page. Wayne (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User:WLRoss (Wayne) is an Australian editor, motivated by nationalist bias and resentment against Deckers for "stealing" the ugg boot, an "Australian icon." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think this 'note' does for your own neutrality? Bad move. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although tangentially related (in terms of it being a trademark infringement), the proposed expansion of scope does not seem to fit under the article title.  A mention in "see also" or "external links" would suffice. Alternatively, a hatnote could be added, though that might be a case of WP:RELATED. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support [Transcluded from above, fully authorized per WP:TPG Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)] "IMHO the inclusion of counterfeit issues is arguable, and thus not grounds for failing this article [in the Good Article review]. 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)"
 * Support the inclusion of a single, highly notable counterfeiting case as an example. Several reliable sources, linked on the Talk page above, have identified counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. All of the trademark disputes that are already in this article involve Deckers. Adding one paragraph to describe one more case wouldn't water it down, any more than adding a thimble full of water to a beer stein would water that down. This was a compromise that was offered on the article Talk page, but rejected by an editor who is trying to WP:OWN it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once one off topic case is added then others will follow. This is what happened to the Ugg boot article and eventually resulted in an RFC to exclude counterfeits there. Wayne (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not if we agree from the beginning that only one, highly notable example should be included here, with a link to other cases at UGG Australia should readers choose to learn more about them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what you said before and it didn't happen. The example you want to include is not even "highly notable". A Google search for court cases brings up only three links for the Vaysman case in the first 100 results and all three were Australian legal websites. More than half of the results were for case numbers 11-cv-7970 and 12-cv-377 (against Chinese websites selling counterfeit Uggs) which were reported across worldwide media. Wayne (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Transcluded) To the contrary, a Google search that is properly constructed (combining two key terms such as Vaysman and Deckers, or Hepbourne and Deckers) produces links to dozens of websites that report various stages of the case. It's highly notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well so they are!!!!! I would have sworn they had their own sections!!!!!!! That changes everything...OH WAIT....You edited both those articles yesterday to change the counterfeit sections to subsections of trademark disputes!!!!!!!. I'm actually not surprised as this is not the first time you have altered other articles to support your edits in disputes. Wayne (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the counterfeiting topic is only pseudo-related. Its inclusion here would only serve to detract from the point of the article which is to demonstrate the conflicting views on TM vs generic.Mandurahmike (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User:Mandurahmike is an Australian editor, motivated by nationalist bias and resentment against Deckers for "stealing" the ugg boot, an "Australian icon." He is also voting as an editor canvassed by User:WLRoss (Wayne). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Do you have anything other than strawmen and assumptions to contribute to Wikipedia? I've, off and on, been a contributor and editor of the main Ugg Boots article. Because I don't make it my life's work to hover over it like, you know, someone paid by a large corporation to push a company line, doesn't mean I've been canvassed if I decide a vote is worthy of my attention.Mandurahmike (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's really the WP:POINT of the article, then it should have a very different title. I've suggested Australian ugg boot manufacturer genericity disputes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been told repeatedly. The title is the name used for the genericity dispute so it complies with WP:TITLE, quote:The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct... forms. No one would search for this article using "Ugg boots genericity disputes", they would use "Ugg boots trademark disputes" and expect genericity disputes to be there. If they were looking for counterfeits then they would write counterfeit. If they came here from redirects in other articles they would know exactly what this page would be about as the other articles have trademark disputes sections which only discuss genericity which are separate from dedicated counterfeit sections. Move on. Wayne (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me to move on. You don't WP:OWN this RFC, any more than you WP:OWN the article. Since you've voluntarily chosen the title Ugg boots trademark disputes, other types of trademark disputes belong here. Perhaps the best argument supporting my position is your voluntary inclusion (without any prompting from me) of the Luda Productions case, which has absolutely nothing to do with genericity. It's a prior use case. According to your thinking, readers looking for that case shouldn't be able to find it here; they should run a search on "prior use." Also, other related articles (UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation) have counterfeiting as a SUBSECTION of trademark disputes.
 * Only one other type of product, Apple Computers, has an entire article dedicated to its trademark disputes. And those have been far more notable, lasting from 1978 to 2006 and spawning four seperate enormous lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps, holding company for The Beatles and owner of Apple Records. Perhaps we should use that fact as a signpost for our future navigation regarding this topic. Not even Louis Vuitton has a separate article about its many, many trademark disputes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Quote:"related articles (UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation) have counterfeiting as a SUBSECTION of trademark disputes."
 * And you saw them yesterday after I'd edited them, edited one article yesterday (in the very subsection that was moved), and did not object ... until now. I wonder why. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonder no more. I didn't check what was edited and had no idea the sections had been changed. You get caught cheating and you try to spin it by making false accusations...typical. Wayne (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you stand by your support vote but we both know that you would support the sky being green if it were against me. Weight per WP:Balance does not apply because counterfeiting has no prominence in the genericity dispute. Wayne (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Object: At first I was leaning towards Support then saw what Wayne said to Pheonix about 'if a second is placed more will follow' and agree we don't want it getting out of hand, plus Oppose is the general consensus here. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 19:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I really don't see why the additional counterfeiting issue shouldn't be included, per WP:BALANCE...--MONGO 02:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: MONGO is voting as an editor canvassed by User:Phoenix and Winslow for support. Wayne (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Transcluded from my User Talk page Phoenix and Winslow (talk)] Hey Wayne...if you want to discuss bias, let's look at Kerry and Kay Danes, where none other than Jimbo Wales himself stepped in and removed all the BLP violating stuff you'd been supporting for years. Phoenix didn't "canvass" me...if he wanted to he could have emailed me...I checked his editing history and saw the Ugg Boot issues (which I have previously participated in) and knew you'd be on the other end of the loop...I've almost reached the point where I am going to refuse to AGF of your contributions to this site...about all you do is promote fringe theories, violate BLP and do general harm to the articles.--MONGO 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Transcluding a personal attack (per WP:NPA) by another editor to support your own argument is no different to making the personal attack yourself. Wayne (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So it was just a coincidence that you messaged MONGO that you were having a dispute and within minutes he voted here? The last time you messaged MONGO was two years ago and that was blatantly canvassing him to support you in a RFC against me because no one else would. You got in trouble for canvassing him that time so you think it's not canvassing because you were a little more subtle this time? As for that crap about the Danes article, Kay Danes contacted me because she wanted some changes in the article. I made most changes she asked for except for ones involving legal documents in her possession that contradicted some media reports mentioned in the article and I told her I couldn't add it because the documents were not public. She posted thanking me for what I had done and then I told her I would get someone to help her with the documents so posted on the BLP board asking for help. Jimbo found no BLP problem but stubbed the article "temporarily" two weeks later on the grounds that the article discussed the arrest of the Danes before revealing they were innocent when it should have been the other way around. The admin discussion went on for almost eight weeks before it was decided the article would remain stubbed primarily due to concerns regarding the reliability of the Laotian Government as a source and to a lessor extent the Danes owns website. There was nothing negative of the Danes in the article and the Danes themselves did not object to the article other than on specific points which were largely corrected. Bringing up unrelated articles I've been involved in previously in a way to imply that I did something wrong is both childish and despicable behavior, especially as you have been told not to do it on previous dispute boards. Wayne (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wayne, nobody believes you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not related to this discussion, but the Danes did not want the article up on Wikipedia at all. I think the talkpage discussions at that article demostrates you were only modestly appeasing of the Danes, who were logging in using IP's and later under a username to try and get the incorrect info removed...but their preference was to have the article deleted...I know because I emailed her. Back to this topic at hand, I stand by my support comment since there may be a big difference between copyright/trademark laws between various countries...and what Phoenix is proposing seems to me to be fine for this article.--MONGO 15:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it's not related to this discussion and I'm not blaming you for bringing it up. P&W reposted your comment because he always resorts to personal attacks when he gets frustrated. The problem is that bringing this sort of stuff up implies bad behavior when none exists. For example you sometimes bring up that I was taken to WP:ARB9/11 for my editing in order to discredit me, yet never have you mentioned that the case was closed after no evidence of disruptive or POV editing on my part was found. I'm not aware of the Danes using ISPs. I am aware that their lawyer and a Loatian guy did so. The fact remains that I was the one who took it to the BLP board and specifically stated there that I might be interpreting policies too strictly and wanted the admins to take over. The Danes thanked me for my work on their behalf so that should count for something.
 * Whatever Wayne...I do traditionally oppose anyone who has a history of supporting fringe theories on this website.--MONGO 15:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Counterfeiting should be covered in the Deckers article, not here. This topic is about legal disputes, not illegal smuggling. Note that I am an American editor who might be assumed (by some) to have a friendlier viewpoint toward Deckers. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not include. Any notability this dispute may have is in the uniqueness of the situation in which a trademark was, in ignorance, granted over a word which was already in generic use to describe a style of footwear. Minor disputes about counterfeiting and/or passing-off are mere trivia which are only of any real relevance to the companies concerned. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dave has hit the nail right on the head. In fact, I'd go a step further and, to avoid any confusion, renaming the article to "Ugg boots trademark dispute" -- Yes, there's been numerous court cases but they are all part of the larger dispute.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about a trademark dispute and not about counterfeiting. LK (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Abandon the RfC, based on (1) non-neutral presentation of a question, (2) allegations of canvassing, and most importantly (3), which is that I believe the best organization for the material will be more apparent once existing material is corrected (and perhaps, substantially trimmed) to comply with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Deciding now is putting the cart before the horse.  Finally, perhaps this will allow editors to back away from an apparent lack of good faith, which, to quote Darth Vader, I find "disturbing". --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In this case, the relevant policy is WP:TITLE and the relevant section of that policy is WP:PRECISION. We have to start with the policy and work backward: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Since Wayne admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, the topical scope of the article, Ugg boots trademark disputes, includes counterfeiting cases. Wayne has consistently whined that the topical scope of the article should only include genericity cases, but the title he chose for the article "unambiguously defines" a substantially broader topical scope. And the inclusion of the Luda Productions case also proves that the topical scope is not limited to cases of genericity. Luda Productions is a prior use case; genericity was never mentioned in that case. A plain reading of the article title indicates that all types of trademark disputes should be included. This includes not only genericity cases and prior use cases, but also counterfeiting cases.
 * The title is Ugg boots trademark disputes because that is the term used by the media to describe the genericity dispute and that dispute ONLY. Perhaps that's true in Australia. As I've said repeatedly, this is not the Australian Wikipedia. In the rest of the world, "trademark disputes" or "trademark infringements" or "trademark battles" or "intellectual property disputes" that involve ugg style boots are almost always counterfeiting cases. Here are just a few reliable sources to support that statement.
 * This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute":  And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article:  :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one:  Raise your eyes beyond Australia's shores, Wayne. In the rest of the world, the term "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is a term that includes counterfeiting, no matter what you wanted it to mean. [Transcluded.] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, dude. Until now, I've been using four search terms: "ugg," "trademark," "dispute," and "counterfeit." Look at what happens when I take out the word "ugg":         "Trademark dispute" may mean "generic" in Australia, but in the rest of the English-speaking world, the topical scope clearly includes "counterfeiting." [Transcluded from WP:PRECISION discussion below.] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Please stop filibustering. No more posts. You keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseum and no one will bother reading this rubbish anyway so let the RFC move on to a result. Wayne (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The title is the name commonly used for the genericity dispute and is used correctly per WP:TITLE. Counterfeiting and other disputes are not particularly notable and belong in the UGG Australia article. Inclusion would also require the addition of a section explaining intellectual property laws which would give equal weight to a far less notable dispute. Wayne (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, this article is ostensibly about whether "ugg boots" is a generic term? Amid that controversy, there have been court cases against alleged counterfeiters.  The alleged counterfeiters have argued that they're simply using the generic term.  The proposed expansion of scope for this article includes efforts by the American company to fight against counterfeiting, separate from the trademark dispute? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not about whether "ugg boots" is a generic term, this has been largely resolved by the court cases in this article. The article is about the trademark dispute itself which has had widespread media and legal coverage as a notable dispute. Counterfeiting should rightly be covered in the Wikipedia article for the branded product (i.e.:UGG Australia). That counterfeiting is usually not mentioned in most brand articles is indicative that counterfeiting is not generally notable. The only notable case that involved both counterfeit and generic Uggs is in this article.
 * Counterfeiters may have attempted to argue that they're simply using the generic term but a judge will not allow the argument to be used in court. A generic term defense is not applicable to counterfeit goods.
 * Counterfeiting is a copyright dispute and as such a different set of laws applies. For example, the Lanham Act does not apply to foreign generic disputes but it does to counterfeiting. Wayne (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. According to Wikipedia, "Counterfeit products have a fake company logos and brands. In the case of goods, it results in patent infringement or trademark infringement."  However, although counterfeiting may include trademark infringement, it doesn't include any dispute, and it doesn't seem to be related to the trademark dispute.  Thus, although I can see shades of gray in this issue, I think you're basically correct.  I think the article title should be changed first, if discussion of counterfeiting is going to be added.  Readers will expect to find a specific controversy here.  I'll summarize my arguments above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did consider a hatnote but the related articles (Ugg boots, UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation) all have "main article" redirects to this article in their Trademark dispute [summary] sections. Ugg boots doesn't have a counterfeits section while both the other articles do. In both, the counterfeit section is a separate section from the Trademark dispute section so readers have no confusion over what this article covers. Wayne (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Counterfeiting has been described as a trademark dispute on several reliable source websites, linked above. Including a single, highly notable counterfeiting case as an example is appropriate. And it's important to note that while one judge in one country (the Netherlands) excluded the generic defense from one counterfeiting case, trademark laws differ from country to country. Criminals manufacturing or selling counterfeit UGGs in any one of over 130 other countries that are not the Netherlands are still free to argue the genericity defense, and judges in those countries may rule in their favor. For all these reasons, the title does not have to be changed to include one sample counterfeiting case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While counterfeiting is a trademark infringement it is not a trademark dispute, it is an intellectual property dispute. However, there is no real dispute, can you cite even one case which found in favour of counterfeits? Counterfeiting is prosecuted under copyright law not trademark law. Wayne (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, my search did turn up one case. A Deckers intellectual property lawyer sued a Chinese company for selling counterfeits after he bought a pair of UGGs from them that had dodgy trademark tags. The case was dismissed after it was found that the company was an authorized distributor for Deckers and that the tags were faulty due to poor quality control. That case was legitimately disputed but it doesn't invalidate my position. Wayne (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a counterfeiting see also to the Trademark disputes section. Hopefully this will resolve the problem so we can move on. Wayne (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, a Google search that is properly constructed (combining two key terms such as Vaysman and Deckers, or Hepbourne and Deckers) produces links to dozens of websites that report various stages of the case. It's highly notable. The fact that counterfeiters have never defeated Deckers does not mean that they never dispute the charges; for example, counterfeit distributors in the Dutch La Cheapa case disputed the charges and lost, but it was still a trademark dispute. As mentioned previously, the Vaysman family chose to fight back in an unorthodox way: agree to an out of court settlement and then ignore it completely, agree to another out of court settlement and ignore that one as well, declare bankruptcy to avoid paying damages, etc. That's a very passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges, but it's a dispute nonetheless. And you've already admitted that "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: Counterfeiting is prosecuted under either patent law or trademark law, depending on the facts of the case; the counterfeiting cases discussed here all involve trademark law, hence they were trademark disputes. In the Vaysman case, copyright law happened to also be involved because like the counterfeiters in the Dutch La Cheapa case, the Vaysmans also duplicated a copyrighted owner's manual that Deckers includes in each box of genuine UGG brand boots. Your position has been thoroughly invalidated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest. Be that as it may, not only does it return only 0.02% the number of results that a search of all counterfeit cases involving Deckers returns, but the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites. BTW, the Vaysman's ignored three settlements, not two and rather than a passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges it is the hallmark of a criminal enterprise. Ignoring a settlement is "public contempt," the Vaysman's were charged with "criminal contempt" for also ignoring subpoenas to reveal their sales and profits. Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish. La Cheapa did not dispute that their boots were copies of Deckers and co-operated with the court. La Cheapa's only argument was that the counterfeits were merely similar to Deckers and that the Jumbo Uggs they also sold stated on the Jumbo website that the brand UGG Australia was not protected so that covered the counterfeits as well and Deckers was unable to dispute this (quote:"Deckers has not contradicted the accuracy of this last statement. The court may therefore not conclude that there is trademark infringement"). The Dutch court instead found La Cheapa in copyright violation for it's counterfeit boots. The judge in his final judgment also criticized Deckers for bringing the case to court at all because La Cheapa had stopped selling the counterfeits (38 pairs in total) after being contacted and Deckers could not produce evidence that they tried to settle out of court. Deckers sought €25,957.72 in legal costs but this was reduced by €6,412.71 due to double billing. Because the court believed the case should not have been brought, it only awarded €11,699.00 plus court costs and forfeiture of €686, being the profits from La Cheapa's sales of counterfeits. This case actually makes Deckers look petty and vindictive.  Wayne (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest. That's not what I did. That may have been what you did to get your peculiar result. I used the names of the parties, Vaysman and Deckers, which is the way it's usually described; the search results demonstrate that it's highly notable. Using case numbers alone artificially narrows down the search, which is what would indeed be incredibly dishonest.
 * ... the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites. There are several reliable websites reporting this case. To a very large extent, Australian news media carefully ignored this case in much the same way that American news media carefully ignore, to be as kind as possible, inconsistencies in government descriptions of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Kathy Marks, for example, is pretending that the Vaysman case does not exist. Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail. If licensed attorneys post false information about cases, they can be sanctioned by the bar association and their licenses to practice law can be suspended. Does every argument destroying your objections need to be repeated here? There are entire archives full of that sort of thing at Ugg boots. Perhaps I should just post a link.
 * Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish. How did the Dutch judge reach the conclusion that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, if La Cheapa hadn't tried to use it? Like other counterfeiting cases discussed in the many reliable sources I've linked above, La Cheapa defines counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. In almost all cases, it involves trademarks. And when it goes to court, it's a dispute. I think your confusion may arise from the really peculiar fact that under Dutch IP law, the DESIGN aspects of a product (physical shape and appearance) are covered under the copyright chapter of their legal code. In most other countries, these design aspects are covered under patent law and the resulting patents are called "design patents." But in this case, printed materials in the Deckers box that had been copyrighted were also copied by the counterfeiters.
 * At this link for the La Cheapa case in the copyright section of the decision (starting with 4.13), the word "boekje" refers to a booklet. In 4.20 there's a reference to an "UGG Pamphlet." In 4.22 again there's a "boekje en tekst" (textbook). These all refer to the owner's manual. The copyright section of the court's decision also refers to packaging, the sun logo, images (photos), and text on the La Cheapa website that was cut and pasted from the Deckers website. Packaging is trade dress. The rest are common elements of copyright infringement worldwide. All these legal eccentricities underscore the fact that IP law varies considerably from country to country, and when one Dutch judge says that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, it does NOT mean that it cannot be used in any other country. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely unbelievable. No need for me to reply to this section as what I wrote is so obviously being manipulated to get the answer you want.
 * Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail. Hellooooo. It was me who wanted to use legal documents. You took it to WP:RSN and argued that legal documents couldn't be used unless their claims were reported by the media. Unfortunately you won.
 * I actually posted La Cheapa's argument above which was "the Jumbo website stated that the brand UGG Australia [wording not design] was not protected," the judge said that although Deckers could not refute the claim (the statement was in fact true), this was a generic defense and couldn't be used.
 * ... as what I wrote is so obviously being manipulated to get the answer you want. The way I see it, you distort and obscure certain important details. I clear it up, so that the truth is known. And the truth — that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, and therefore belongs in an article titled Ugg boots trademark disputes — is the answer I want.
 * It was me who wanted to use legal documents ... Here's an excellent example of the preceding in action. Legal DOCUMENTS are primary sources, and you can cherry pick the details you want to spin-doctor content, which is precisely what was happening under your stewardship. Legal WEBSITES, in most cases, are reliable secondary sources, operated by law firms or published, peer-reviewed law reviews and journals. I was talking about legal websites. You've decided to pretend I was talking about legal documents.
 * Unfortunately you won. I consider it very fortunate that Wikipedia was, once again, being protected from those who wish to use unreliable sources, use sources that are reliable for extremely limited purposes in an unreliable way (which is what was happening), or otherwise violate Wikipedia policy to pursue a private agenda. When Wikipedia is protected, Wikipedia wins. I am just an instrument of Wikipedia.
 * No more posts. You don't WP:OWN the RFC, any more than you WP:OWN the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment. I was, more specifically asked by Phoenix and Winslow to vote of a specific question. When asking opinion on a specific ongoing content question, it is much better if you just alert people to the problem, rather than frame it for them. Let them make their own analysis based on what they see for themselves. What should be asked for, is any contribution they can make to the discussion, or even their personal opinion, but not a vote--one way or another.
 * When I am asked, my own preference is to look at the general matter at issue; a specific question is often too specific, and this is an example of it. My general comments are:

Primary sources are used in conjunction with secondary sources. For example, secondary sources discussing the dispute mention what the primary sources say about the law regarding the dispute so I have added the primary sources as well. There is no content in the article from primary sources that is not mentioned by the secondary sources. Not sure what you mean by biased. The pictures were intended just to show examples of generic and non-generic boots using the word ugg. The article is the current view. There have been no notable court cases recently. Wayne (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is a little too narrow. People tend to interpret "trademark" a little more broadly than the actual definition, and a section on trade dress & counterfeiting etc. would help the article, if only by clarifying the distinction
 * 2) The article does rely too heavily on primary sources, some of them about trademark law in general, and not this dispute in particular. and to the extent it does, is an example of the sort of OR we call Synthesis.
 * 3) The caption on the lede picture is biased. I note it happens to show the precise trademark, not the general term.
 * 4) This is not conceivably a good article. The main reason is that it not does not give a current view of the subject. The latest information given is that there was a settlement on undisclosed terms in 2011. This is now 2013. What is in fact the actual situation currently: who is using what name for the product where? That is really the necessary conclusion and summary of the matter.  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is not the legal term. It is the name used for the genericity dispute and is noted as such in the lead.


 * I agree that this is not a good article because of its being incomplete, but I also think it fails on NPOV tone. It is too supportive of Deckers because of word choices such as "Deckers enjoyed UGG boots sales..." There is also the problem of disputed neutrality, and the wholly redundant "See also" section. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I compromised on some of the edits P&W wanted to keep the peace. Didn't work, he wanted all his edits and still considers this article an anti-Deckers hit piece. Wayne (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, in the ongoing dispute, each has indicated that the other may have a bias....indications that WLRoss|Wayne may have a anti-Deckers bias and Phoenix/Winslow may have a pro-Deckers bias. And WLRoss/Wayne is the one who nominated it for GA. I think that both are good editors, and that this is mostly arising from a people-dynamics situation from previous rough history rather than a content dispute.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer


 * I have also been asked to comment on this issue - in fact asked by Phoenix and Winslow to vote on the specific question. I second DGG's comment that I would prefer to be asked to comment on the issue rather than !vote on a narrow question. I think it is a mistake to express this in terms of a technical question of legality (i.e. is counterfeiting a type of trademark dispute). The question is whether counterfeiting (which I take to mean deliberate and flagrant production of UGG boots that pretend to be the Deckers version) is relevant to an article about whether the name "UGG" can be trademarked. Based on my reading of the article my answer would be no. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To explain a little further, my intention was to say that both issues are so closely related that they should be covered together. This can be done in two ways: including everything in the general article, or wording the title so as to cover all the intellectual property questions. (If the name is indeed a US trademark, then putting it on a boot by anyone but the trademark holder is illegal in the US, whether or not intended to deceive. If not a US trademark, only them  the question of whether a mark is applied to deceive people that it is made by a particular company regardless of legal trademark status is relevant. the distinction should be explained in the article, but to cover them separately is absurd-- as the issues are very similar to any practical significance & any reader interested in one is interested in the other.)  And personally I think trademark is clear in the title enough to cover both, but since obviously some people do not find it clear enough, then the title would have to be broadened to keep the material together, where it belongs.   DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why these issues are similar? On the one hand, black-market factories rip off trademarked goods and sell them as "fakes". On the other hand, one commercial company disputes a trademark that's claimed by another. The two cases are very different, conceptually, and associating the former with an article about the latter risks mis-characterising the dispute as an issue of simple piracy. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of OR/synthesis from the article? Wayne (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment here, and don't have any particular connection with the article. Moreover, despite the coincidence of last names, I don't know of any connection between myself and the manufacturer involved. I don't really even know what UGG boots are save that I get a metric (redacted) of form spam from people trying to sell them, which I find annoying.  All that out of the way, I considered not wading into this, but am forced to by my emphatic agreement with points 1, 2 and 4 made by DGG above. Before figuring out how best to organize materials on trademark, counterfeiting, DOC and so forth into one or more articles, and before giving titles to the resulting article or articles, it would be best to rewrite the material into an article which does avoid the OR/synthesis problems DGG address, see what's left, and then factor the article (or don't) into units.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots? How would you rewrite this question to be more neutral?
 * For the record, I fully support Joe Decker and DGG in emphatic agreement with Points 1, 2 and 4 made by DGG above. Particularly Point 1. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion page break

 * I was invited here randomly by RFCbot. I see two RFCs in the same section, posted by two participants in a dispute. That's not going to produce a clear consensus and I think everyone is wasting their time here. Likewise the conduct of the RFC appears to have been tainted by canvassing which also suggests a failed process. Joja  lozzo  00:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the mess you see above is not unusual for some discussions involving User:Phoenix and Winslow although this time he has been more active and gone further in his canvassing than he usually does. The second RFC should not be there as it is asking a question that does not apply to the article but it would result in another 20 pages of text if removed. It may be a "failed process" but what alternative do we have when dealing with someone so accomplished in eristic dialectics. Wayne (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a failed process, Wayne. And here's why. You presented the question in the wrong forum with an enormous amount of spin-doctoring in favor of your own position. It's a question of trademark law. Therefore it should be presented for RfC where other questions of law are presented: "Politics, government, and law." When I did that, you screamed like hell as if it was somehow unfair. You also scream like hell that canvassing is unfair. I've never had any contact with any of these editors before. I had no idea how they'd vote. Some of them voted in favor of your position, underscoring the propriety of this form of canvassing. I've only solicited their input because they've listed themselves as available for any RfC at WP:FRS. I tried to focus on editors who indicated that they'd be available for more than one RfC per month. Since you search my contribs so frequently, looking for something to scream like hell about, look at the names of the people I canvassed, and the order in which I canvassed them. Compare that to the list of names here: This form of canvassing is not prohibited by the WP:CANVASS rule, so you can stop screaming about it.
 * Your deeply flawed and heavily biased creation of this RfC, and your constant screaming about alleged unfairness whenever I've tried to make it right, have resulted in a failed process. You asked whether there is any alternative to the process you've caused to fail. I suggest that we proceed pursuant to DGG's suggestion. It seems to be the best way out. It's policy-based, and it comes from a previously uninvolved and neutral senior editor. Try to remember that WP:CONSENSUS defines Wikipedia consensus differently than just a raw vote. The strength of the policy-based arguments is more important than any vote, because policy represents a consensus of every Wikipedia editor on the planet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See Inappropriate notification for why you cant canvass. Quote: Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. This form of canvassing is prohibited by the WP:CANVASS rule. You've been warned on other noticeboards about canvassing so you can't plead ignorance. Wayne (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The RFC question was basic and NPOV. Exaggerate all you like but I'm allowed to present my position in the discussion. Replying to your flawed RFC question with a single post is not "screamed like hell." I should have followed WP policy and deleted your POV RFC question. I also never said that that canvassing was unfair. You violated Wikipedia policies by posting extremely POV canvass messages that included lying to the canvassed editors to force the result you wanted. I never canvassed anyone and still have not despite your continuing to canvass after being warned to stop. Despite being warned by multiple editors you continue your bad behavior as if you have done nothing wrong. Do you really consider it honest for you to transclude another editors view as a support vote despite his specifically stating he did not want to vote? Another editor you canvassed stated he opposed but for some reason you never added his "vote" to the survey which you would have done had you been acting in good faith in transcluding the other editors comments as votes. Perhaps you would benefit from mentoring. Wayne (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear lots of indignant screaming, but no reaction to DGG's proposed solution. It's well thought out, and built on a solid foundation of Wikipedia policy. Will you support it as a compromise? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the suggestion is flawed because it equates legal jockeying in the courts (trademark law) with illegal piracy (counterfeiting). The two issues are very different. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because it's based on a faulty premise as you well know ie.: the flawed RFC question you posted and a misinterpretation of the subject. And don't pretend to offer it as a compromise when it's exactly what you wanted in the first place. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And don't alter other editors posts. You have been warned about this before. Wayne (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I only altered the INDENTS to clarify which edits belongs to each editor — precisely the same thing that you've just done to mine. Diff: Your indents were all over the map. As always, you screw up and then scream like hell when I try to make things right, and carefully avoid any mention of any of the facts that put my actions in a better light. Not one character in your posts, or anyone else's, was altered in any way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a serious violation of policy to alter an RFC posted by another editor, even by addition. The editor who posted the original RFC would have been justified to delete any edits that altered the RFC, including the addition of the second request. I suggest abandoning the current request and starting over at this point with all parties understanding policy on editing others' talk page posts and on canvassing. Joja  lozzo  14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, I challenge you to explain why this question is not neutral: Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots? How would you word the question (bearing in mind that you can't mention law)? Wayne (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would welcome the abandonment of this RfC and the start of a new one, if it's started by a neutral party such as DGG or North8000. Wayne has created this RfC on the wrong board and the question was phrased with a great deal of spin-doctoring to get the result Wayne wanted. This is a question of law, therefore it belongs on the "Politics, government, and the law" board. Put quite simply, since it's an article about Ugg boots trademark disputes, are counterfeiting cases that go to court qualified as trademark disputes? If so, then they should be in the article, and we can write whatever is needed to distinguish them from other types of trademark disputes — supported by reliable sources of course, and consistent with policies such as WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think an RFC is not neutral you may say that in your comments. You can object to the phrasing and ask for rewording. You may not edit it or amend it or append to it. Please trust the process and trust that whoever closes the discussion will act in the best interests of the article, taking your opinions into consideration. If the RFC is flawed the result will be no consensus, as I am certain will be the case with this one.  Joja  lozzo  22:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:RFC: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page. If that does not resolve the problem, some other forums for resolution include: ... If an article content question is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask for a third opinion on the Third opinion page." Wayne didn't bother to discuss an RfC request with me, nor did he seek a third opinion. He just went ahead and started the RfC without any input from me, on the wrong board, with a spin-doctored question that he designed to get the answer he wanted. I really think that a third opinion might help, making an RfC unnecessary. If it doesn't, then we should work together to design a truly neutral RfC, on the correct board. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly state that you would agree to having a neutral question. A third opinion was not an option as such an opinion would be flawed without the editor having an understanding of what the trademark dispute is. The question was not one between two editors as it has been the subject of a previous RFC (RFC on inclusion/exclusion of court cases involving counterfeits) that was left open for five months with you being the sole supporting editor.
 * As a show of good faith, I challenge you to explain why this question is not neutral: Should this article be expanded to include copyright and trade dress disputes involving Ugg boots? Very easy. Trademark disputes involve trademark law. The title of the article says this is about trademark disputes. Copyright and trade dress are not trademark law, therefore the question is designed to get the answer you want: oppose. You've already admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. The question needs to be structured around that premise.
 * How would you word the question (bearing in mind that you can't mention law)? As a matter of fact, I can and should mention law, since it is a question of law: since you've admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, do counterfeiting cases belong in an article about trademark disputes? And there is nothing wrong with simultaneously listing this in two, or even three RfC sections.
 * "Politics, government and the law"
 * "Economy, trade and companies"
 * It's a fashion-related article, not sure where that belongs, perhaps "Society, sports and culture" Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for anyone to work with others in starting an RFC and lack of prior consultation is certainly not justification for violating talk page policy. In addition, an RFC is a good way to get third opinions. If this is not understood, perhaps administrative intervention would be helpful here. Joja  lozzo  15:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO what is dominant here is that two editors here have had some rough history with each other, and it has kind of showed up on this question. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that folks can't be that concerned about whether or not counterfeiting items get covered in this article. Wayne and Phoenix, care to have me flip a coin (odd/even on the edit number) and agree to go with the results? North8000 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, User:Phoenix and Winslow behaves in this manner even when I'm not involved. See the Ugg boots talk page and the number of warnings on his own talk page (you will need to check history as he deletes them). He kept pushing counterfeits at Ugg boots until an RFC concluded that counterfeits were not relevant and should be in the company articles. This article was created to cover the trademark dispute as was discussed on the Ugg boots talk page so it could be summarized there and he knows it. You only need to look at his behavior here to see how little respect P&W has for WP policies. I took great pains to make the RFC question as neutral as possible and I defy anyone to do better. The question can't include mention of law as that would make it extremely POV. This article is not about the law, it is about a specific dispute and counterfeits have no place in this article as they are not, and never been have, part of that dispute. Wayne (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along? bad boy jamie   talk 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION and 'topical scope'
To Wayne and Phoenix & Winslow. There was some talk giving up on the above RFC and also asking (possible me) to frame a new RFC. Taking the first steps of exploring that, what do you two think about giving up on the above RFC? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC) The title is Ugg boots trademark disputes because that is the term used by the media to describe the genericity dispute and that dispute ONLY. The title DOES NOT say Ugg boots trademark Law. Decker's own trademark dispute webpage does not mention counterfeits at all. Do you understand or do we need an RFC to determine what the articles topic is? Secondly, you have been warned at several noticeboards not to use unrelated past disputes in your attempts to discredit editors. By continuing to do so you only reveal your contempt for WP policies and procedures so stop going on about relevant policies that you are too willing to twist to suit your own agenda. Wayne (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in two minds over this. A new RFC would allow Phoenix & Winslow to continue with a clean slate so to speak whereas, at the moment, other editors are aware of his poor behavior. I can't see him accepting a neutral question and if past behavior is anything to go on he will continue to filibuster if it doesn't go the way he wants and he will likely canvass stealthily. On the other hand I have no real problem with the wider attention the canvassing and his posting a new, albeit flawed, RFC brought as it had little impact. Despite his actions, the vote is seven oppose, three support and one abandon and I doubt if more will vote in a new RFC. The previous RFC on this question resulted in seven oppose and one support so I doubt the consensus will change significantly. I for one want to get back to editing more important articles as soon as possible, I've wasted far too much time on an topic that is of limited interest to me. Wayne (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I just came here to do a GA review!  :-)  :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, I thought it would be a walk in the park. Wayne (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm fine with abandoning that RfC. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if we do it carefully and with both of you involved and committed to the process, one benefit would be to finally settle it. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wayne, the way I see this, you are near "on the fence" on this, and P&L wants to do it. So I think that you should decide. I'd then be happy to work on it. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You overlook that no vote will ever settle the question for more than a few months. This dispute went on for over two years on the Ugg boot article despite User:Phoenix and Winslow being the only supporting editor. Considering that all the flaws in this RFC have biased it in favour of the support vote, I believe a vote of 7 oppose to 3 support should be accepted if only to avoid another RFC that will only waste everyone's time. The last vote on inclusion of counterfeits was 7 oppose to 1 support so consensus seems clear. Phoenix and Winslow can always bring it up again next year if he wants. Wayne (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I point out that Phoenix and Winslow is currently involved in an RFC on another article which has deteriorated in a similar way to this one with claims of canvassing and forum shopping etc. In that RFC Phoenix and Winslow said that a vote of 6-4 should be accepted as consensus and that it be closed as resolved after only 13 days. He also said he didn't want to wait another 30 days for a new RFC when it was suggested as a way to resolve the problems there. He has shown in that article that he will accept the results of a closer vote than we have here. Wayne (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an RfC — I'd ask Wayne to stop distorting the facts, but that would be like asking him to stop breathing, since it happens with similar frequency and seems to be equally essential to him. That discussion was just an informal survey of editors already active on the article. North8000 happens to be involved in that one, and is well aware of the fact that it wasn't an RfC. The recommendation at WP:ANI was to let it run for seven days. I've let it run for 13 days. Furthermore, it's a highly charged political topic and an RfC would encourage a phenomenon known as "drive by editing."
 * Also, it's clear that Wayne doesn't even understand WP:CONSENSUS, or how it works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Such questions are never decided simply with a raw vote. The strength of policy-based arguments should decide such questions. Wayne has already found out the hard way, in a painful and humiliating way, on two other articles that one editor armed with policy — in those cases, WP:BLP — can win a content dispute against any number of other editors who have nothing to support their actions except their own personal agendas.
 * In this case, the relevant policy is WP:TITLE and the relevant section of that policy is WP:PRECISION. We have to start with the policy and work backward: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Since Wayne admitted that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, the topical scope of the article, Ugg boots trademark disputes, includes counterfeiting cases. Wayne has consistently whined that the topical scope of the article should only include genericity cases, but the title he chose for the article "unambiguously defines" a substantially broader topical scope. And the inclusion of the Luda Productions case also proves that the topical scope is not limited to cases of genericity. Luda Productions is a prior use case; genericity was never mentioned in that case. A plain reading of the article title indicates that all types of trademark disputes should be included. This includes not only genericity cases and prior use cases, but also counterfeiting cases. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop with the straw man arguments. Per WP:TITLE Quote: 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.
 * You don't WP:OWN the article, Wayne. You don't get to cherry-pick which portions of WP:TITLE will apply to this article; all of them apply to this article, including the ones you find inconvenient. You don't get to define what the title means; that definition is found in a plain-English reading of its four words.
 * The title is Ugg boots trademark disputes because that is the term used by the media to describe the genericity dispute and that dispute ONLY. Perhaps that's true in Australia. As I've said repeatedly, this is not the Australian Wikipedia. In the rest of the world, "trademark disputes" or "trademark infringements" or "trademark battles" or "intellectual property disputes" that involve ugg style boots are almost always counterfeiting cases. Here are just a few reliable sources to support that statement.
 * This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute":  And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article:  :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one:
 * Raise your eyes beyond Australia's shores, Wayne. In the rest of the world, the term "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is a term that includes counterfeiting, no matter what you wanted it to mean. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, dude. Until now, I've been using four search terms: "ugg," "trademark," "dispute," and "counterfeit." Look at what happens when I take out the word "ugg":         "Trademark dispute" may mean "generic" in Australia, but in the rest of the English-speaking world, the definition clearly includes "counterfeiting." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know consensus can change but this is the fourth or fifth survey in that two years and all have overwhelmingly rejected your position. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then let's figure that the "new RFC" possibility that I brought up isn't going to happen.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Two experienced editors (DGG & Joe Decker) have recommended that the current RfC should be abandoned. I agree. It was hopelessly flawed from the beginning — in favor of the Oppose vote, not the Support vote, for reasons I've already explained. I tried to repair the RfC's birth defects, so to speak, but I was unsuccessful. I see a new RfC, that isn't biased by any irrelevant discussions of trade dress and copyright law, and is presented on the "Politics, government and the law" board, as the most effective way forward. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In what world was this RFC in favor of the Oppose vote, not the Support vote? You canvassed, you added a second RFC specifically POV worded to encourage support votes, you forum shopped to get more support votes, you altered related articles to better support your argument here, you made personal attacks on editors and you filibustered when the discussion didn't go your way. Despite repeated requests you have declined to show how the RFC question was biased. I've shown a tremendous amount of good faith with you when you should really have been topic banned. This article is about a specific dispute not the law that dispute is governed by, the law already has it's own article. A new RFC can not include law. A new RFC will also return the same result it has on the previous two occasions. You were quite happy to accept a 6 to 4 vote in your favour at Tea Party Movement yet a 7 to 3 vote here is not acceptable? Wayne (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these points have been refuted and all of these questions have been answered, before you posted this. Please stop pretending that I haven't already responded effectively to all of this. Scroll up and review the page. And stop pretending that I "should have been topic banned long ago." If I was as thin-skinned and histrionic as you, I'd call it a personal attack. I'll just call all of this what it is: an annoying collection of false statements that does nothing to advance the discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have followed Wikipedia policies regarding the RFC. You have consistently violated multiple policies and not once have you apologized or shown any remorse when other editors have warned you of the violations. Just because you replied to some points does not equate to refutation as is shown by the majority vote supporting the points and by extension rejecting your replies. Despite the heavy bias introduced by your bad behavior you still lost the RFC. Wayne (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have had a look at archives and found that an RFC was held in 2011 with a proposal to create a page named either Ugg boots trademark disputes or Ugg boots (trademark disputes) to cover the topic of genericity which passed and that inclusion of counterfeits was rejected with the suggestion they be restricted to the Ugg Australia article. Phoenix and Winslow took part in that RFC so knows counterfeits were never meant to be included. This lends further support for the intent of this article. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CONSENSUS policy. In two years, consensus can change. I didn't base my arguments on the WP:PRECISION policy at that time. What is your response to WP:PRECISION and the argument about the "topical scope" of the article, as "unambiguously defined" by the title? Not the way that you intended it, but the way that an unfamiliar reader would read it? How is an English-speaking person from Russia, or China, supposed to know that when Wikipedia says "trademark disputes," we're really talking about only one case? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They would read the lead first before reading the article. If they didn't know then they would have to be pretty thick.
 * My response to WP:PRECISION? I quote from WP:PRECISION: Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. We had consensus to use the name most commonly used by the media for the dispute, a naming convention recommended by WP:TITLE. As you took part in the two discussions and one RFC that named this article you should be aware of this. Wayne (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's another one of your distortions, Wayne. Here's the discussion: Daveosaurus suggested the title Ugg boots trademark controversy. HiLo48 agreed with him. You announced your creation of Ugg boots trademark disputes and your removal of everything except the Uggs-N-Rugs case to that new article. Daveosaurus observed that it was an improvement in his opinion for "this article" (meaning Ugg boots). The only editor who openly stated support for the new title was ArglebargleIV. And there was no discussion of whether this was "the name most commonly used by the media," nor was there any mention of "a naming convention recommended by WP:TITLE." Two against two is not consensus, Wayne.

It's really impossible to assume you're editing in good faith when you keep misrepresenting the facts again and again like this, Wayne. It takes an enormous amount of time just to unravel all the lies and distortions. It's clear that in the rest of the world, "trademark disputes" is a term that includes counterfeiting. And the current title's alleged "exception to the precision criterion" was never even discussed, let alone approved by consensus. You apparently believe that the default status for Wikipedia is agreement with you, and consensus for every scheme you invent; and that going in any other direction requires an RfC, which must be carefully worded by you to get the results you want. But the default status for Wikipedia follows the rules, not the exceptions. In this case, clearly stated Wikipedia policy should defeat you once again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course the "exception to the precision criterion" was never discussed because no one objected to the proposed (not chosen by me) names I posted above. Of course going in any other direction requires an RfC, because you consistently refuse to accept a consensus that is rather obvious when you are the only editor supporting that new direction. Actually you technically did have support a few times, but five of your nine supporters ended up blocked as sockpuppets while the other four were found likely to be meatpuppets at the sockpuppet investigation so we don't count those. The discussion you mention above was a later discussion, not a RFC, the RFC I was talking about was the one you started that was held at WP:NPOV that WP:ANI had to close to avoid ARBCOM becoming involved. If anyone wants to read it, it covers 93 pages. Re: RFC questions which must be carefully worded by you to get the results you want. First of all, I believe this is the only RFC I have initiated on this subject. Usually you start them when consensus goes against you. Secondly, I have asked you several times to explain why the RFC question here is biased and you have so far declined to answer. I challenge you to do so now or admit it is not biased! Wayne (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC) WP:PRECISION: ''Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic.'' WP:Primary topic: Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. Continuing to push WP:PRECISION based on a single sentence within that policy which is itself only a minor sub-category of the full naming policy is tendentious. This article indisputably complies with the relevant Wikipedia policies for naming. Wayne (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to reply to such garbage. Did you really need to transclude most of this to another section, don't you think this RFC is long enough? I find it amusing that you are accusing other editors of bad faith after you have shown bad faith from the beginning of this RFC through your blatant violation of so many WP policies.
 * Your summary dismissal of my supporters is ridiculous. All accompanied by your usual raft of accusations. MONGO, LuckyLouie, Liangshan Yi, ChristieSwitz88001 and Factchk have not been blocked as sockpuppets, or found to be likely meatpuppets at WP:SPI. There have been four separate sockpuppet investigations. Always naming me as the alleged sockmaster. And not one finding that I actually did it. I grow very, very weary of all your lies.
 * ... the RFC I was talking about was the one you started that was held at WP:NPOV ... No wonder I couldn't find it. It isn't even in the Ugg boots archives and despite your characterization, this wasn't an RfC either, at least not in the usual sense. It was a relevant discussion at WP:NPOVN. Again, no discussion of WP:TITLE; no discussion of any exception to the precision criterion; and only a couple of mentions of creating a separate trademark disputes article. And it isn't mentioned anywhere in the formal consensus findings at the top of the page.
 * Bilby supported keeping counterfeit cases out of the trademark disputes article. Factchk said, very unambiguously, that "all cases have to be included." Binksternet and Elinruby also supported creating the trademark disputes article, but were completely silent about whether it should include counterfeiting cases or not. No consensus there, Wayne. And I can't say that I'm surprised. Nearly everything you've said has been a distortion or a lie. Why should you suddenly start telling the truth at this late date? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And again you refuse to explain how the RFC question here is biased. Wayne (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll explain this again. I've already explained it once. Copyright and trade dress are obviously beyond the topical scope that was unambiguously defined by the WP:TITLE. "Trademark disputes" does not include "copyright disputes" or "trade dress disputes." But your RfC question asked whether copyright and trade dress disputes should be included. The obvious answer to this RfC question was Oppose. And since you've already admitted that counterfeiting is actually a trademark dispute, the RfC question (which pretends it isn't) was deliberately deceptive. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of the RfC is Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots? The question covers counterfeits. Under the Lanham Act (trademark law), trade dress is "packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products", ie: counterfeiting. Obviously copyright and trade dress both apply to counterfeits which falls under the technically correct term "Trademark disputes". However, WP:TITLE prefers to use the name typically used by reliable sources even if the term has another meaning. Precision merely requires a title to be unambiguous and does not mandate that the topic name be the technically correct term. Use of the term trumps precision, ie: what would a reader enter in the search box when searching for information on counterfeit Uggs, ugg trademark disputes, counterfeit uggs or the brand UGG Australia? Readers looking for the genericity dispute would likely enter ugg trademark dispute. That the actual dispute is not widely known outside of Australia and fashion circles is irrelevant. Consensus determines the topic when there is a conflict in naming. Insisting on the strict technical term is being pedantic. Wayne (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides. As well as the Rfc title, the very next post clarifies that copyright and trade dress means counterfeits. I chose to use trade dress in the question because you specifically asked to add counterfeiting and trade dress cases to the article. As copyright is always included in trade dress cases I included that. I seriously doubt that there are any editors here that don't know we are talking about counterfeiting. Wayne (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're Wikilawyering again, and your indents are wandering all over the map again. The overwhelming majority of counterfeiting cases are trademark disputes. Mentioning copyright and trade dress was designed to get Oppose votes. WP:PRECISION is the appropriate policy here. As always, your lies and distortions have required enormous investments of time searching various archives to unravel all your lies. You didn't have consensus in early November 2011 to create the article. There were signs of consensus in late November 2011 at WP:NPOVN and in March 2012 at Talk:Ugg boots. No consensus supported the title. No mention of an exception to the precision criterion. The WP:TITLE unambiguously defines a topical scope that in the rest of the world, outside Australia and New Zealand, is understood to include counterfeiting — with an enormous number of reliable sources that support this interpretation. A plain reading of WP:PRECISION mandates a consensus finding of Support. To avoid it, you've embarked on a campaign of distortion, deception, false accusations and other assorted lies. I hope whatever admin closes this discussion can see through them and make the correct ruling, based on policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't use WP:TITLE in isolation. WP:TITLE as a whole applies. BTW, lots of WP:PA there, way to take the high ground. Wayne (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Counterfeiting is illegal. The jockeying to settle trademark disputes is not illegal. The two activities are not at all the same. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, both are "trademark disputes" as Wayne has already admitted. Therefore both are within the topical scope that was unambiguously defined when Wayne picked out the title for the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Wayne said, "This article is not about counterfeits", "This article is about the law regarding, genericity, not regarding counterfeits", "there is no dispute regarding counterfeits, counterfeits are always illegal", "Counterfeiting is not a trademark dispute and definitely not in the meaning of the title of this article", "Deleting all mention of counterfeits", "I simply eliminated the counterfeit cases per the RFC consensus", "When a counterfeiting case goes to court, the only dispute is regarding the penalties", "counterfeit cases be excluded", "a consensus was gained to exclude counterfeiting from Ugg boot Trademark disputes", "If you want to create an article called Ugg boots counterfeit disputes, please do so", and "Counterfeiting belongs in articles on brands". Do not purposely misinterpret another editor's position on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Wayne also said, "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: In light of that admission, everything else he said that you've posted here is irrelevant. According to his own admission, counterfeiting cases are trademark disputes. And according to the WP:PRECISION policy, they belong in this article: Ugg boots trademark disputes. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You can not cherrypick the parts of a Wikipedia policy you like to get the result you want.
 * I already took that diff and that quote into account. Your repetition does not change anything. It certainly does not sway me! I can see very plainly that Wayne is not in favor of having counterfeiting on this page. That is my position, too. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)