Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Review discussion

Extended content

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

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

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

Factually accurate and verifiable

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

Broad in its coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illustrated, if possible, by images

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

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

Result

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

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

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

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.[8] 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, [9], 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[10], Spanish[11], Norwegian[12], Polish[13], Romanian[14] and Swedish[15] 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][16] ran to 93 pages despite P&W being virtually the only editor supporting), canvassing[17], 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?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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: [18] 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. badboyjamie 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 Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. 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)

• 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."
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!!!!!!![19][20]. 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)

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)

• 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#What is considered to be a personal attack?) 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.[21] 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.[22] 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.
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)

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 decker^talk 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. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": [30] This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute": [31] And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article: [32] :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one: [33] 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": [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] "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

• 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: [43] 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[44] 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.
  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)

• ... 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:

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.
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)

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)

• 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 decker^talk 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?
Can you give an example of OR/synthesis from the article? Wayne (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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. Jojalozzo 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: [45] 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: [46] 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. Jojalozzo 14:09, 8 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. Jojalozzo 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?
How would you word the question (bearing in mind that you can't mention law)? Wayne (talk) 10:03, 10 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? 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.

1. "Politics, government and the law"
2. "Economy, trade and companies"
3. 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. Jojalozzo 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? badboyjamie 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)

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.
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)

• 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. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]
• This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": [54] This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute": [55] And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article: [56] :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one: [57]
• 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": [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] "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)

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.
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)

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: [67] 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)

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.
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)

• 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 ... [68] 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#Precision 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: [69] 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.
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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.