Aust ugg boots lose fight against US giant

[imastawka]

Australian ugg boot-maker Eddie Oygur has suffered a $US450,000 ($A643,000) loss in his "David versus Goliath" legal fight with a major US footwear and apparel company.

A jury in Chicago on Friday found Mr Oygur's business, Sydney-based Australian Leather, wilfully infringed a trademark registered to California-based Deckers Outdoor by selling ugg boots online to customers in the US.

After a four-day trial, Mr Oygur was ordered to pay Deckers statutory damages of $US450,000 and he may face an order to pay millions more in legal costs.

Deckers generates more than $US1 billion in annual sales from its UGG brands.

Mr Oygur argued "ugg" is a generic term originating in Australia from the 1960s surfing community.

"It has been a cruel blow," Australian lawyer and former senator Nick Xenophon, who is in Chicago supporting Mr Oygur, told AAP.

"Everything he has worked for in Australia for over 40 years has come to this."

Deckers acquired the UGG Australia trademark in 1995.

"Deckers' products have been widely accepted by the public and are enormously popular, as demonstrated by over $1 billion in annual UGG sales," Deckers wrote in its complaint to the US District Court.

"The UGG Trademark is a famous mark."

Mr Xenophon said Mr Oygur was "devastated and defiant" after the verdict and hoped the Australian public, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Labor Leader Bill Shorten backed the businessman's plan to appeal.

"It is not just a devastating blow for Eddie Oygur and Australia, it is a devastating blow for Australian jobs," Mr Xenophon said.

"The term ugg should never have been trademarked.

"It is a generic term that should have been protected by Australian governments in the past.

"As disappointing as the verdict is, what has been incredibly disappointing is the Australian government has failed to stand up for Eddie by providing him the legal assistance he deserves to fight this case.

"Eddie and his tiny company have been doing this all on their own."

AAP has reached out to Deckers for comment.

Well that just stinks!

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/aust-ugg-boots-lose-fight-against-us-giant/ar-AABc52z?ocid=...

[go-tazz]

---

@imastawka wrote:

I notice on Deckers UGG website that they don't sell to Australia.

Funny, that.

---

In Aus and NZ Ugg is a generic term for a type of shoe/boot and can't be trademarked (the problem was that it

was in Aus only and the rest of the world totally ignore anything that's country specific).

[icyfroth]

Sad, but predictable.

US companies have the dollars and the lawyers to make sure they prevail!

[debra9275]

Ugg boots have always been Australian as far as I'm concerned.

it's a real shame the case has been lost

[davidc4430]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Sad, but predictable.

US companies have the dollars and the lawyers to make sure they prevail!

---

truly amazing anyone could find fault in a maga huge american company using an american court with an american judge to fight a little guy from austria (oops) australia.

seems a fair deal to not me

[davidc4430]

---

@debra9275 wrote:

Ugg boots have always been Australian as far as I'm concerned.

it's a real shame the case has been lost

---

maybe some of our high profile celebrities who turn up on every tonight show (or any show) should:

1. Wear some genuine aussie made UGG boots

2. Explain to the dumb americans the UGG boot story.

i'm thinking hugh jackman for starters

then the guy playing thor

nicole kidman

there are others

[icyfroth]

I believe it's a brand name issue.

The American co. registered the brand name.

The Aussie manufacturor did not.

Sad, but that's the way it goes.

[imastawka]

Ugg is a generic term in Australia.

You can't register a generic term.

Kinda like trademarking  'shoes'

[icyfroth]

---

@imastawka wrote:

Ugg is a generic term in Australia.

You can't register a generic term.

Kinda like trademarking  'shoes'

---

Not really. "Ugg" could mean anything.

The Americans don't give a rat's backside about generic terms in Australia, apparently.

I'm sorry for the Aussie guy who started up the brand though. Who would've thought the Americans would buy up his brand and copyright it?

Thieving barstools!

[go-tazz]

---

@imastawka wrote:

Ugg is a generic term in Australia.

You can't register a generic term.

Kinda like trademarking  'shoes'

---

That's my take on it and if someone where to manufacture them but call them something else then they could

possibly sell them elsewhere.

Deckers trademarked the word UGG and that's what the dispute is about.

If Aussie manufacturers could get it made into a regional mark like Champagne did then Deckers would be

stripped of the UGG brand.

This is the full story om how and why doesn't recognise generic words from overseas which can't be

trademarked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots_trademark_dispute

[davidc4430]

australia should trademark the word 'bully' but i'm sure some american has beaten us to it (excuse the pun)