Talk:Ugg boots trademark dispute/Archive 3

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.

---

Ugg boots trademark disputes

Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Strongly support. The counterfeiting of consumer goods is a trademark dispute. It is very notable, costing legitimate brands such as
  UGG Australia, Louis Vuitton and Rolex
  billions of dollars in sales every year. Counterfeit goods are often made with child labor or slave labor, under unsafe conditions; and like the drug trade, the proceeds frequently go to organized crime.

• In closing the prior RfC with no consensus, an admin observed, "although the include !votes are fewer they also make stronger [policy-based] arguments." [1] The controlling policy is
  WP:PRECISION
  : "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." This is the stronger policy-based argument.
• A key "Oppose" editor admitted counterfeiting is a trademark dispute.[2] Since they're trademark disputes, counterfeiting cases belong in
  WP:PRECISION
  . (That should be enough. But if you're not convinced, read on.)
• The same key "Oppose" editor cited
  Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the U.S. maker of UGG brand boots, as a bully and Australian manufacturers as victims.[3] [4] [5] [6]
  (Read the last few paragraphs of each version.) Counterfeiting proves that sometimes, Deckers is the victim and an Australian manufacturer is a bully, so AU/NZ editors who continue to exclude counterfeiting continue (deliberately or not) to push the same POV. Whatever article they want to send counterfeiting to has become a POVFORK. (Still not convinced? Keep reading.)
• The same key "Oppose" editor claims the topical scope only includes genericity cases. But the title he chose "unambiguously defines" a broader topical scope. Also he included the Luda Productions case when he created the article, [7] proving topical scope is not limited to genericity. Luda Productions is a prior use case; genericity was never mentioned. A plain reading of the title indicates all classes of trademark disputes belong here: not only genericity and prior use, but also counterfeiting.
• "Oppose" editors have claimed that adding counterfeiting cases would "dilute" or "water down" or "overshadow" the discussion of the genericity dispute. Adding one or two bullets near the end, to describe one or two more cases wouldn't water it down, any more than adding a thimble full of water to a beer stein would water it down.
• "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 (although proof has never been provided). This is not the Australian Wikipedia. In the rest of the English speaking world, counterfeiting UGG boots is a "trademark dispute." This has been comprehensively proven beyond any reasonable challenge. Please support this proposal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Clarification: To be clear, I oppose any effort to change the title of this article or create an exception to
  WP:PRECISION. Phoenix and Winslow (talk
  ) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral By pure precision, I think that counterfeiting does not fall under the common meaning of the title of this article, as IMHO the common meaning of "trademark dispute" would mean a dispute about the trademark itself. But these should be covered somewhere, and I don't think it would be a big problem to put them is this article. So, those counterbalance each other and I'm neutral on the question. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Partial oppose Fundamentally, this article is about trademark disputes, which involve one company disputing another company's trademark. Such a dispute can occur in different forums - it can happen as it did through IP Australia, in the US courts between Deckers and Emu Australia, and in the Turkish courts. It can also happen as part of a counterfeiting case, as was the situation with La Cheapa in the Dutch courts. In situations where it is clear that counterfeiting cases incorporate a trademark dispute, I see no problem with including them on a case-by-case basis. But not because they are counterfeiting cases. That is clearly off topic. If a counterfeiting case involves a defence where the alleged counterfeiter disputes Deckers trademark, then its relevance to this article is because it is a trademark dispute, and only because it is a trademark dispute.

In most case, there is no trademark dispute in counterfeiting cases, and I strongly dispute the claim that counterfeiting is invariably a trademark dispute. Even when they involve counterfeiting trademarks, it only becomes a trademark dispute if a party argues that they didn't violate trademarks because the trademark didn't apply. Simple trademark violations are outside of the scope of this article, and if they belong anywhere it is in the

Deckers Outdoor Corporation

articles.

So the short version - I oppose incorporating counterfeiting cases, but support including trademark disputes (as opposed to trademark violations), even if they occur within a counterfeiting case, on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I have never liked it when people try to play word games to push their point of view. In the previous RfC, the following links to reliable sources described Ugg boots counterfeiting cases as "trademark disputes," or "trademark infringement," "trademark battle" or "intellectual property dispute." [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Also links to these reliable sources, describing the counterfeiting of other consumer brands, such as Tiffany and Burberry, as a "trademark dispute." [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. This is the understanding throughout the English speaking world. Therefore it belongs in an article about trademark disputes. The logic of this is simple and powerful.

It does not expand the topical scope. Instead it adds something that is already in the title's topical scope, but missing from the article. When reading arguments by opponents, look out for

WP:WEASEL words and convoluted thinking. One opponent has repeatedly claimed consensus [28] for various steps in the process, when no consensus existed. [29] Whatever they claim, ask for links to prove it and check the links. Liangshan Yi (talk

) 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the links you provided only discussed cases where Deckers' trademark was infringed, and didn't argue that Deckers' trademark was disputed. The Vaysman case you linked to, [30], may well have involved a dispute over the trademark, but that wasn't mentioned in the link. The counterfeiting case currently included in the article, La Cheapa, ([31]), mentions that the defence argued that ugg was a generic term, and could not be protected by trademark. Thus it meets the requirements of being a trademark dispute, as opposed to a simple case of trademark infringement. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

These are word games. You are very good at playing them, but you are still gaming the words. I choose to rely on policy, and the abundance of reliable sources which describe counterfeiting as "trademark disputes," not merely "trademark infringement," and did not involve challenges to trademark validity as you describe. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Your sources above regarding UGG Australia don't refer to a "trademark dispute", using that phrase, except in two cases: an advertisment [32] and a spam page [33]. They use other phrasing if they mention trademarks in the body at all.

But the main issue is scope. Deckers, based on the sources you provided, are extremely active in protecting their brand. We don't need an article listing every counterfeiting case involving UGG Australia, and if there was a case for such a list it would be most appropriate in the article about Deckers or their products. Thus we need some sort of criteria to prevent this from being a "list of counterfeiting claims pursued by Deckers". So this article is about a more specific issue - the argument about whether or not Deckers can own the trademark to the term "ugg". That's where the dispute comes in. Where this is raised in a counterfeiting case, as with La Cheapa, then I can see value in including it here. Otherwise it would be out of scope. - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you describe as "spam" [34] is really a rough English language translation of a Chinese language article from a reliable source, Shanghai Daily. A newspaper, as reliable as any in Australia, and several Australian newspapers are relied upon in these Ugg boots articles. I would be able to link the original Shanghai Daily article if it would change your mind, but that doesn't appear likely. You are Australian, and for you and many Australians whose votes are below, this is an issue of national pride and loyalty. Some of the other linked sources describe Ugg counterfeiting as a "dispute," and explain that it involved the Ugg trademark a few words or sentences away from "dispute," so it is the same. The reliable sources describing other consumer goods counterfeiting, such as Tiffany and Burberry brands, all say "trademark dispute," very clearly. So it is understood that the counterfeiting of consumer goods, including Ugg boots, is a trademark dispute. Some of them even say "trademark dispute" in the headline. You play your game very well, Bilby. But it is a word game you are playing. Others below have clearly been fooled by word games. One of them even thinks the "creator" of the article is the one who should decide. Once it has been added to the open pages, it belongs to the whole Wikipedia community, which expressed its wishes in the form of policy. If the scope is supposed to be genericity, why is the Luda Productions case included? That is the one case which proves it isn't about genericity. It's about making Deckers look like a bully, and the Australian companies look like the victims. Phoenix has repeatedly said that he intends to add only one or two more cases, so it would never become the list you describe. Liangshan Yi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I reiterate my comments from the previous RfC: counterfeiting (by which I mean flagrant disregard of intellectual property rights) is clearly relevant to trademark law but I can see little relevance to the topic of this article, which concerns two groups of people who differ on the correct legal position of these rights. Inclusion in this article could unfairly associate one of the parties to this dispute with flagrant illegality. If it is included, it should be done in a way that is brief and draws a clear distinction between the two issues. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No, it shouldn't be included. We're in danger of losing track of the point of this article. If counterfeiting is included here all it will do is water-down the article into a muddle that no person who hasn't been following the Ugg Boots Wikipedia Saga for the past five or more years will be able to make sense out of. If we discover an example of counterfeit boots using the logo of some other brand say, for example, Emu, should that also be included in here alongside the La Cheapa case? Just because something is technically and superficially related to the title of an article doesn't mean it should be forced into the article if the article is less useful as a result. As I said in a previous comment, if anything needs to be changed about this article the title needs some sort of clarification so it can't be mistaken for something so general. I'd simply knock the plural off so we have a "dispute" instead of "disputes" so people know we're talking about a specific dispute - that regarding the words used to describe a particular item as generic or trademark. We should be trimming this article down to make it more succinct, not bloating it with off-topic embellishments that only serve to distract readers from the main point of the article. This RFC was not proposed in the hope of improving the article. It's just an extension of the battle for meaning that has, ironically, been the hallmark of the very dispute the article attempts to outline.Mandurahmike (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While some counterfeiting cases may involve trademark infringement, they are not the trademark dispute that this article clearly articulates in the intro. The article was almost passed during Good Article assessment, failing only because it was not stable. Clearly, if this article is about the genericity debate, then trademark infringement does not belong here, despite the similar-sounding term. The creator of the article has maintained that the title is the
  non-neutral material, such as one manufacturer being portrayed as a "bully" or "victim" exists, it should be fixed, not used as evidence to support the insertion of material. Countering a prior bias with a push to portray a corporation in a more positive light does not make any sense, especially when it's off-topic. Most arguments for inclusion revolve around But it's true! or an attempt to redefine the scope. A simple "see also" or hatnote would suffice, in case interested parties want to know about trademark infringement. I, too, think that the s in disputes is superfluous and should be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
  ) 02:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article covers a topic notable in it's own right. Counterfeiting should either have it's own article or continue to be detailed on the company pages as is currently the case or the point of this article will be lost.
  UGG Australia. That "Deckers is the victim" of counterfeiting is not a reason for a detailed inclusion of Ugg boot counterfeiting in every article that mentions Ugg boots. The article title has been cited often as a reason to include counterfeits. Dropping the plural in the title to eliminate the perceived ambiguity has been suggested by several editors and this can be done once the RfC has concluded. Wayne (talk
  ) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per
  WP:N. No independent notability of the alleged counterfeiting cases has been demonstrated (and if any is, then an article can be started for them). I also concur with Ninjarobotpirate, Mandurahmike and others that the trailing 's' isn't necessary and if it is considered necessary for the title to slavishly adhere to the pluralisation of the contents of the article, then it should be a simple job to move the article. Daveosaurus (talk
  ) 06:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would be convinced to !vote 'support' if I discovered that the reliable sources in this case were consistently equating counterfeiting with trademark dispute. I looked at the examples that were brought forward in a previous argument and I determined that the examples could not be interpreted in that manner. For instance, this law firm update page says that an injunction was obtained by Deckers against a raft of counterfeiters. There is no "dispute" here: the counterfeiters were obviously working illegally ("bad faith") to profit off of the UGG trademark, and they were quickly smacked down, their accounts seized and their domain names taken away. The case was an outright trademark violation, not a dispute. A dispute involves conflicting good faith claims made by two or more parties, the matter to be settled by measured arguments. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Still oppose like I did in the previous RFC. I fully agree with the oppose rationals made above so far. We can change the title if there is confusion or disagreement about what it covers but this page was forked out to make the trademark dispute between Deckers and Australian manufactures more detailed, not to address counterfeiting which is only related to Deckers as an illegal trademark infringement and therefore should be handled at
  talk
  ) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Which links are you describing? Many of them use the phrase "trademark dispute," some of them use it in the headline. Also you are mistaken: you did not oppose in the previous RfC. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Including would be SYN and
  coatracking. LK (talk
  ) 03:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't see why all these cases can't be in the same article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Counterfeiting still involves Intellectual Property and has bearing on trademark status internationally.--Factchk (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree that this article is in danger of bring coatracked. Since this seems to be about a specific and rather notable dispute it would jeopardize the integrity of the article as outlined by the scope to fill it up with all and sundry non-notable copyright violations, particularly when most of those are clear cut crime rather than "disputes"Shari (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC request..(2nd time) well this time I'll make a comment. You couldn't pay me enough money to get dragged into this ridiculousness. Good luckGeremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 23:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We have eight opponents. Three of them are from Australia and one is from New Zealand. The main article, Ugg boots, has a history of making Deckers look bad. [35] [36] [37] [38] The combination of circumstances leaves me wondering. There is a saying, it looks good but it smells bad. I apologize for any offense, but my experience makes me ask the questions. Are you certain there is no chance this is a Wikiclique, or cultural bias, or a conflict of interest among the Australians? In China "trademark dispute" is a phrase that usually describes counterfeiting, particularly with luxury brands and designer brands. There have been many counterfeiting cases in Chinese courts described as "trademark disputes." I will use Google Translate to provide English versions of some of these: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] In China there are many millions of people who can read English. It is the most popular foreign language in the schools. China may have more people who read English than Australia. Chinese people use English Wikipedia if they can, because there is a larger range of articles. Are you saying that whenever anyone in the world reads the phrase, "the Ugg boots trademark dispute," we are to think of an IP Australia case? Readers in China? In America? In Europe? For Chinese readers, "the Ugg boots trademark dispute" would probably make people think of the Shanghai case. In Holland, people would think of the La Cheapa case. There are many notable trademark disputes involving Ugg boots without genericity, and all of them should be provided in this article. One of them is already here, it is called Luda. Another is called Emu and that does not challenge the validity of a trademark, so it is not a "trademark dispute" according to your word game. Stop playing the word game. It is only making trouble and raising these questions. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people here playing word games are the ones trying to have elements inserted into this article based on a misinterpretation of a very literal reading of the title. The scope of this article does not support this inclusion. Speaking of games, Playing the "cultural bias" card does no one any favours in a rational discussion (It doesn't even make sense, given only half of the opposition are from Australia/NZ and it's hardly surprising that a topic about an Australian/NZ topic would attract editors from those nations). Neither does trundling out something like "since the Ugg boots article has a history of making Deckers look bad" as though this was some sort of self-evident truth. Post such as this do not invite reasoned discussion; they invite a flamewar. Do we really want to go down that path?Mandurahmike (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, of course it is not a self-evident truth. That is why links to four old versions of the article were posted. Since it is not a self-evident truth, it had to be proven. Here is your proof again. The main article, Ugg boots, has a history of making Deckers look bad. [47] [48] [49] [50] If you choose to start a flame war, it is your decision and we can respond appropriately. I choose to discuss this calmly and respectfully. That is the history of the Ugg boots article at Wikipedia. It was used as an attack vehicle against Deckers for several years. Most of the IP addresses used during that time to add inflammatory language such as "managed to appropriate," "most Australians considered this offensive," and "taken up the fight to let the world know," these can be traced to Australia. There was plenty of time for me to review this. I suspect the current push to define the IP Australia case as "the" Ugg boots trademark dispute for the whole world might be a continuation of the same attack campaign. Half the editors supporting this push have proven to be from Australia or New Zealand. The rest are from unknown origins, and could be from Australia as well. Or they may be innocent editors who were fooled by the word games. There is a saying, it looks good but it smells bad. Liangshan Yi (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, you've made your case and you've already insulted the opposing side multiple times (accusing them of

WP:NPOV violations, weasel words, lying, and now being a conspiracy). Give it a rest, OK? dpmuk requested that we cease debating inside the rfc, assuming bad faith, and drudging up the past actions of editors we dislike. If you've got a problem with the AU/NZ editors, I suggest you make a formal complaint and stop making insinuations here. It's off-topic, and it's been expressly forbidden by an administrator. Given that this article is on the verge of being promoted to Good Article status, thanks to the efforts of some of those AU/NZ editors, I doubt you'll have much luck, however. The way things are looking, I think this debate could be nominated for WP:lamest edit wars, now that accusations of a conspiracy have been introduced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This time around, it should be painfully obvious. We have the weight of policy on our side. On your side, eight of you have posted at length and not even one of you has mentioned a policy or even a guideline at all. I can think of an essay that applies to your arguments:

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

. Unlike our side, policy isn't what motivates your decisions here. Something else motivates your decisions, Liangshan Yi has offered some suggestions about what those motivations might be, and any thought of policy on your part is purely an afterthought. Your other motivations have yet to be determined. But at this point, I predict that you're going to go on a desperate search for some sort of policy that can be spin-doctored and distorted enough to look like it might support you. To any objective closer for this RfC, it's a little late for that.

I pointed out from the very beginning that we have the weight of policy on our side. I specifically cited and quoted the policy I rely on. I linked the remark by Dpmuk, the administrator, who observed that our policy-based arguments are stronger. And still you fail to even mention any policy or guideline at all. It's painfully obvious.

I've always conceded that the genericity disputes should be the main event here, with plenty of

WP:WEIGHT

provided through higher placement in the article AND greater amounts of space. My position is that it simply doesn't deserve so much more weight that other, very relevant matters have to be completely evicted from the article. That's just completely arbitrary at best. And at worst ... well ...

Regardless of what you think about his other observations, Liangshan Yi has made a very good point about perceptions in other parts of the world. In China, India and many other countries besides Australia, there are hundreds of millions using the English Wikipedia. For those people, "the Ugg boots trademark dispute" is about counterfeiting. For Australians, the genericity dispute is the only one that matters, but Australia is a small part of the world. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the RfC is going to conclude as a solid "oppose". The opposing arguments are sound and they outnumber the supporters. Sometimes it is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If they had some policy to support them, you might be right. Unfortunately, they don't. Policy is an expression of consensus by the entire Wikipedia community, including 12 arbitrators, about 1000 admins, and about a million editors. You have eight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The solid "oppose" had seven editors in the first 20 hours and 19 minutes. They are very solid because they have solidarity and organization. It is remarkable, this solidarity and organization. Would someone please show me on Wikipedia where the organization occurred? Or was it organized off-Wiki? Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yi, your off topic insulting posts here sound quite similar to Phoenix and Winslow's now and in the past. If you can't back them up with diffs (and I'm sure you can't), you might be better off to cease those unfounded hot air allegations against fellow editors. I'm quite stunned that I, as an American contributor, get that treatment from an account that started their first post in support of Phoenix... and went on to "demonize" Australian and New Zealand editors en bulk. BTW, those oppose votes within "20 hours and 19 minute" where posted after Phoenix's support and most after your support vote which you by no reason I could follow removed and re added after a minutes below a convincing oppose vote. Did you really "reconsider"? Or did you think your "vote" makes a stronger point placed further down. Questions over question one could ask but the base point is, that neither you nor anybody else should clatter this RFC with bad faith assumptions. So please resist in further attacks and let this RFC run it's course. Thanks.

talk

) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You have avoided all my questions. Why? Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You just avoided responding to my post which seems to make you uncomfortable.

talk

) 05:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any discomfort is in your imagination. I asked first. It is only fair that you should answer first. Liangshan Yi (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Liangshan Yi - Can I suggest as a neutral admin that you leave it be. The conversation immediately above seems to be straying very close to what led to the first RfC being such a disaster, specifically you have assumed bad faith and effectively accused editors of canvassing without any evedience. I strongly suggest you stop such unfounded accusations or I will consider your edits disruptive. If you have evedience of canvassing I suggest you bring it to my or another uninvolved editor's talk page so they can assess it and act accordingly. I ask that you not post the evedience here as that could get us bogged down again. TMCk - While I understand your frustration your comments above seem a little heated and likely to inflame the situation. Can I ask that you try to be a bit less inflammatory even if you are making valid points. Maybe take a break before replying. Dpmuk (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries from my side. I made my point about where this RFC is heading (again) and have no intention of responding any further as it would just lead further away from the basics and actual goal of this RFC.

talk

) 01:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Page break

Phoenix and Winslow, you have an interpretation of the situation on your side, which aligns with policy. The oppose votes also have an interpretation of the situation, which also aligns with policy. If counterfeiting is invariably a trademark dispute, then yes, it should be covered. But a number of us disagree that counterfeiting is invariably a trademark dispute, and disagree that counterfeiting cases involving uggs are automatically in scope. So on those grounds, objecting to their inclusion isn't disagreeing with policy.

Defining scope is an important part of any article. It isn't unusual to be faced with a dispute about what falls under that scope, or how it should be defined. I expect that the closer will carefully consider the different viewpoints when the time comes, but I don't expect it will come down to simple policy interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The oppose votes also have an interpretation of the situation, which also aligns with policy. I don't see how. The definition of the topical scope, according to
  WP:WEIGHT
  , significant minority opinions belong in the article.
• If counterfeiting is invariably a trademark dispute, then yes, it should be covered. As you said in your "vote" post, perhaps it should be done on a case-by-case basis. If a particular counterfeiting case is a "trademark dispute," then it should be covered in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I don't find arguments based on machine translations from Chinese texts convincing. However, in reading below your cut, the original article at [51] specifically refers to the dispute over whether or not ugg is a generic term, so yes, it would fit under the current scope of the article and the understanding of "trademark dispute" as involving more than just trademark infringement. I don't think that it helps your case.

Fundamentally, though, this is about scope. Given that we can't reasonably turn this into a list of people accused of copyright infringement by Deckers, the question will get down to where to drawn a line. At the moment, that line is that the case has to involve a dispute over the validity of Deckers trademark, whatever the outcome may have been. There is nothing outside of policy in defining that as the scope. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologise for breaking the admin prohibition on my taking part in discussion. We can include the case because the Uggs were not branded as Deckers, and thus were not true counterfeits. It seems they were legitimate Australian brands which were legitimately using the word Ugg sold in China by Chinese importers. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to pass them off as Deckers and the article specifically says the only infringement was the use of the name "Ugg" itself. I have written the case up and will add it to the article on the conclusion of this RfC. Whether it is notable enough I will leave that up to other editors. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that you !voted and then refrained from commenting so as to try to keep the situation calm - it certainly wasn't a prohibition. Comments on new evedience etc are reasonable as long as they don't become personal attacks etc and as long as they are limited to making your point once and don't become badgering. If things carry on as they currently are this could well end up a successful RfC - yes one side won't like the outcome (which I'm not pre-judging) but I hope everyone will agree it was the consensus outcome. In short if something new crops up, make your point and if someone else disagrees accept they disagree and move on. Dpmuk (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vaysman counterfeiting case

... is a genericity case. This link [52] is a copy of one of the rulings in the Vaysman case by the Federal Court of Australia. The website is run by the Australasian Legal Information Institute, "a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law." That's

Faculties of Law, and I'm fairly certain everyone will agree it's a reliable source.

• Quoting Paragraph 62: "The six Respondents also raise an issue which is common to their defences ... It is that the name 'UGG' is generic in Australia with respect to sheepskin footwear and that, accordingly, Deckers has no reputation in Australia in the name 'UGG' in respect of such footwear."
• Quoting Paragraph 82: "The Respondents ... assert that the word 'UGG' is understood in Australia as being a generic term which applies to a particular style of sheepskin footwear and is widely used by traders to describe that style of footwear."

Exactly like the counterfeiters in the Dutch La Cheapa case, the counterfeiters in the Australian Vaysman case raised the genericity defense. Now here's a slightly later ruling in the same case from the Federal Court of Australia. [53]

• Quoting Paragraph 141: "Hepbourne cross-claimed against Deckers alleging that the registration of Deckers’ trademark numbered 785466 should be cancelled for various reasons. In Deckers (No 2) at [48]-[56] I held that any cancellation of Deckers’ trademark would operate prospectively and did not affect Deckers’ extant rights to pursue an action for infringement of its copyright."

So the respondents challenged the validity of the Deckers UGG Australia trademark also. I think this resolves the matter completely. Since the Vaysman case is a genericity case, it falls within the confines of the genericity dispute that is alleged to be the scope of this article. As Bilby phrased it, the Vaysman case "specifically refers to the dispute over whether or not ugg is a generic term"; and also, as Bilby phrased it, "the alleged counterfeiter disputes [the] Deckers trademark"; and on those grounds, "Oppose" editors' objections to its inclusion have been overcome. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vaysman's were criminals who made counterfeits. It was not a good faith defense as genericity can never be a defense for knowingly manufacturing counterfeits which are always illegal. The judgment supports this as the defense was "struck out", the legal definition of which is that the claim "does not amount to a sustainable claim or defence as a matter of law" is "an abuse of process" or "where it is vexatious, scurrilous or obviously ill-founded". According to the transcript, the Vaysman case was not a genericity dispute but a copyright case. Using your definition, hundreds of UGG counterfeit cases could be listed. Be that as it may, the RfC will decide if counterfeits get in and the Vaysman case lacks sufficient notability when there are a number of more significant counterfeit cases in the media. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was not a good faith defense ... And you know this ... how? Is there a legal analysis, published in a reliable source, that states this? Please post a link. Perhaps these immigrants didn't understand English very well, had no knowledge of the law itself or any expert legal counsel; and the Uggs-N-Rugs case was splattered all over the news at the time, so it's possible they had a good faith belief in the early going that what they were doing was legal. You've never provided any RS support for your contention that they were criminals, and making the claim without support might be a BLP violation. (I don't believe the contempt charges were criminal in nature. Since they didn't have a right to a trial by jury, it was the Australian equivalent of U.S. civil contempt.) [54]
• The judgment supports this as the defense was "struck out", the legal definition of which is that the claim "does not amount to a sustainable claim or defence as a matter of law" ... Yes, that would be consistent with a good-faith misunderstanding of the law by immigrants who don't understand English very well, didn't understand the law and had no legal counsel, and had been led down the primrose path by Kathy Marks and the Australian news media, loudly and ceaselessly proclaiming that "ugg" is a generic term and the Deckers trademark had been stricken from the register, hooray. Perhaps it was lost in all that patriotic celebration by the news media, but Deckers still had one valid trademark in Australia and was prepared to enforce it.
• According to the transcript, the Vaysman case was not a genericity dispute ... The same can be said of Luda Productions, but it's been in the article mainspace, with no controversy, since you posted it 14 months ago. In fact, at one point you claimed that genericity was inherent in the Luda case, even though it was mentioned nowhere in the case. And I don't accept your interpretation that Vaysman was not a genericity dispute. Each and every one of the six respondents raised a genericity defense. If Luda counts as a genericity case, then Vaysman most certainly does.
• ... and the Vaysman case lacks sufficient notability ... I've already demonstrated that you were using the wrong search terms, and that there are lots of reliable sources reporting the Vaysman case at various stages of its seven-year history, bouncing in and out of Federal Court as the Vaysmans breached three separate out-of-court settlements. Oh baby, it's notable. Very, very notable. It's discussed in a basic business law textbook, used in Australian law schools. [55] It's discussed repeatedly at Lexology.com, at SmartCompany.com.au and at the Davies law firm website. I will concede that the Australian news media have shamefully and completely ignored this case. Probably in the same way, and for much the same reason, that the U.S. news media ignored the Monica Lewinsky case for so long: it's directly contradictory to the narrative they wish to present. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As I remember, this is the only counterfeiting case you wanted to add. We have a simple and elegant solution, made available by this new evidence you have found. We could add the Vaysman case, since it now satisfies the objections by the Australian editors, and withdraw the RfC. If space and weight are concerns, we can make room for it by removing the Luda Productions case. It is not a genericity case, so even the article scope claimed by Wayne would exclude it. This would make space available for the Vaysman case. Liangshan Yi (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast, we should wait and see how some of the other editors react to this new evidence. The course of action you propose sounds good, and it would provide a convenient and hassle-free closure to all of this for everyone. In light of his recent statements, I can't see how someone like Bilby (for example) could fail to approve, but let's see what they say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if we do decide to keep it in the article, the Luda case presents an interesting dilemma. Deckers appealed the case in 2010, and legal observers familiar with the docketing at the Federal Court of Australia were expecting that the appeal would be heard no later than October-November 2011. But there's been no mention of any resolution of the case anywhere. It's like a sinkhole opened up on the sidewalk in front of the Federal Courthouse, and swallowed the case and the lawyers. Nothing has been heard from them in the two years since the appeal was filed. I imagine that like the Emu case, it was quietly settled. But that would be worth some investigating. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The court called the case an "intellectual property case." Ignoring orders concerning counterfeiting is civil contempt. The Vaysmans were convicted of criminal contempt. Justice Tracey stated that their conduct was one of the worst cases of serious criminal contempt to come before the Court. As well as ignoring undertakings to stop making counterfeits in 2003, 2007 and again in 2009, they declared bankruptcy to avoid paying damages and ignored subpoenas to reveal their sales and profits. The court found that the Vaysmans continued to make the boots surreptitiously under fake names in full knowledge that they were illegal after each ruling so no one can claim they had a good faith belief in genericity. The Vaysmans even continued to make counterfeits while the court case was going on. They were criminals. We've all given our side so let the RfC run it's course and let the community decide. Wayne (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well yes, the court stated that "Mr [Vladimir] Vaysman's conduct falls within the most serious category of criminal contempt cases" but until just recently, I hadn't found any indication that the other respondents had criminal charges. Finally found, just a couple of minutes ago, an indication that Victoria and Josef Vaysman were sentenced under criminal statutes (the criminal sentencing guidelines were cited by Judge Tracey) but that is very peculiar by American standards, criminal convictions with no right to a jury trial. But on that point I suppose you are correct, they are criminals. In the past you've indicated that they were involved with organized crime and, despite all the additional reading I've done on the case in the past few days, I find no mention of that.
• Good faith is another matter entirely. Particularly at the beginning of the proceedings, it is entirely possible that they had a good faith belief that what they were doing was legal. The Australian manufacturers were mobilizing and it was all over the news. It's certainly possible, given their limited understanding of English, that they believed Deckers didn't have any trademark rights at all, so why not copy their logo and trade dress? Even when they breached the first (2003) out-of-court settlement in 2006, they may have been reacting to the public chatter about the Uggs-N-Rugs case — possibly having a good faith belief that when the Uggs-N-Rugs case was won, they were relieved of their duties under the agreement. The fact that Uggs-N-Rugs had won, that the word "ugg" is generic, and that a Deckers trademark had been stricken was all over the news. It was only later that their bad faith in this matter became clear, after they started breaching subsequent out of court settlements and violating court orders repeatedly (2007 and 2009).
• In any case, you're really stretching it here, Wayne. I've already demonstrated that Vaysman is a genericity case — the court's description of it as an "intellectual property case" doesn't negate that (since genericity cases, and many other types of cases such as prior use and counterfeiting, are part of the larger family of IP cases) — and that the validity of the Deckers trademark was challenged. This is under the umbrella of the "genericity scope" you've claimed, certainly moreso than the Luda Productions case, which had absolutely nothing to do with genericity. It just looks like you're arbitrarily picking cases, based on who won and who lost. By the same standard, the California case should be excluded because the respondents didn't have a "good faith" belief in genericity — because they lost, after all. Your cherry-picking of cases to include and exclude is arbitrary at best. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Vaysman case was organized crime as defined in Australia. The 18 people employed by the Vaysmans to make the boots were all prosecuted and found guilty. It was not "all over the news" as the Uggs-N-Rugs case (and the first media mentions of genericity disputes) did not occur until after the first Vaysman case in 2003. The first time the media felt the Vaysman case was notable enough to report on was in 2009. The California case was a notable case reported in the media, the Vaysmans was not. Of course we are cherry-picking cases. Only those of sufficient notability and relevance should be in the article. The Dangdang case is the exception as it is relevant regarding the dispute but was not considered notable enough to be reported outside of China which is a minor concern. If any case should be removed from the article it has to be the La Cheapa case as it involved the sale of only 38 pairs of boots and it's notability rests largely on the judges finding of bad behavior on the part of Deckers for which they were penalized by the court but which is not even mentioned here. We are getting off the subject. We can discuss the article after the RfC concludes. Wayne (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A total of eleven people "voted" in the RfC but we have only three people participating in this discussion about the new evidence on the Vaysman case. Rather than going around and around with the usual suspect's endless

) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the claim that the Vaysmans could not speak English and had no legal representation, in Australia you get free legal representation if you can't afford it. The judge actually commented on the Vaysmans and their legal counsel: "the quality of their submissions, both written and oral, was of a high order." There is no new evidence that wasn't known when you suggested adding the Vaysman case to the Ugg boots article last year. The reason other editors have not commented is likely because they believe it is irrelevant to the RfC or can see that both sides have been given so there is no point in commenting. Editors interpret sources differently which is why we have a consensus system. To make a case you needed to supply media sources that show that the Vaysmans actually gave a genericity defense. I've been reading all of the Vaysman court cases and according to the transcript of the original counterfeit case:

I am satisfied that each of the respondents is in default by reason of his or its failure to file a defence and to attend directions hearings - Judge J. Tracey

This seems to show no generic defense was made. The first mention of a generic defence was in March 2009 when six of the 22 defendants claimed that the Deckers logo, shoeboxes and instruction pamphlets etc were all generic. The other 16 did not offer any defence. The latest court case, the 2011 partially successful appeal of Josef Vaysman for the contempt of court may be relevant though as it includes in detail the Australian courts opinion of the trademark dispute. Wayne (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that you've both made your point and that you clearly disagree with each other. Rather than this pointless back-and-forth between the two of you I strongly suggest you both wait and see what other editors have to say. This is getting dangerously close to the sort of action that ruined the last RfC. It must be clear to both you now that you won't convince the other person of your opinion so stop trying. Both make your point and then wait for others to comment - further comments on how you disagree with the other gets us no where. Dpmuk (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As wary as I am to reply to a comment that contains the unhelpful words "Rather than going around and around with the usual suspect's endless WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, distortions and spin-doctoring" -- this sort of preemptive discrediting via hyperbole needs to stop -- I'll offer my thoughts. It seems a bit of a stretch to include the Vaysmans case here. Again, it's only very tenuously and "technically" linked to genericity and if you're going to include it then why not include 1700000 other examples of situations where crooks tried to pass off their products as Deckers, EMU, or any of a dozen other ugg boot manufacturers' products. The La Cheapa case here does a worthy job of pointing out the outer boundaries of the dispute on genericity -- that it doesn't extend to patterns, logos, and designs -- and we needed that here (remember, this is about explaining a situation, not about building up a resume of "questionable deeds" from one side or the other to decide who, on balance, the "baddies" are). With that point made, any further listing of examples is redundant as the article is about one particular dispute. Again, that trailing S needs to go.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is another word game. You think that dropping the letter "s" would make this article comply with policy? We have more than one "Ugg boots trademark dispute" in the world. It is inappropriate to base the entire article on Wayne's claim that whenever news media say "Ugg boots trademark dispute," they mean a generic dispute in Australia. Wayne should offer proof of this claim. He has not offered such proof, and you have accepted his claim without asking for proof. These facts tell the story very clearly. Many disputes are notable enough to be part of this article. We have most of them here, but not all. Liangshan Yi (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing a dispute over a trademarking validity with copyright violations. These are different things altogether. The latter is well outside the scope of this article.Mandurahmike (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You are still playing word games. "Dispute over a trademarking validity" is a trademark dispute, but counterfeiting is a trademark dispute as well. In some countries it is "also" a copyright violation, but in those countries, counterfeiting is still a trademark dispute. This small difference is not enough to force counterfeiting cases out of the article. This is especially true when the counterfeiting case includes use of the genericity defense. Both Vaysman and La Cheapa cases used genericity defense, and both defenses failed. There is no significant difference. Vaysman case was also a "dispute over a trademarking validity" so you should have no objection. English is not my native language, but my understanding is good enough to see you are relying on your word games. If you rely on policy, you will see clearly. We are right. Liangshan Yi (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy? The page currently has a clearly defined

WP:NOTABLE dispute. Counterfeiting fails to be within the scope and is not notable. Anyone can accuse one's opponents of playing word games, and it would be trivial to make the same accusation at those who are trying to force in unrelated, off-topic expansions to the article, based off an idiosyncratic interpretation of the article's scope, topic, and title. Clearly, judging only by policy, you're wrong. Counterfeiting, by itself, fails to fall under the scope of this article, even though one possible dictionary definition of counterfeiting happens to fall within one possible interpretation of the article's title. Changing the title of the page would close this ambiguity, preventing further word games, such as claiming that counterfeiting is a "trademark dispute", when the specific dispute is explicitly defined in the intro. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 14:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The page currently has a clearly defined
  WP:SCOPE
  , explicitly stated in the lead, making discussions of counterfeiting ... completely within the described topic area if the counterfeiters raised the genericity defense. At least, that was where the goalposts were until I found out a few days ago that in the Vaysman case, that's exactly what the counterfeiters did. Then, all of a sudden, the goalposts were moved.
• Counterfeiting fails to be within the scope and is not notable. Well, I've just shot down the claim that counterfeiting fails to be within the scope. In the two cases we're looking at (Vaysman and La Cheapa), the counterfeiters raised the genericity defense, therefore they are within the scope as stated in the lede sentence. Regarding notability, I suggest that Vaysman is at least as notable as Luda Productions, and if you'd like, I can start linking the sources demonstrating its notability within
  WP:N. It was discussed in detail in a basic business law textbook used in Australian law schools, and at least three different legal websites have discussed it in detail on multiple webpages. Phoenix and Winslow (talk
  ) 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think anyone is moving the goalposts, but the Vaysman case is certainly much more of a gray area than a random counterfeiting case. It sounds like it might be topical. It sounds like it might just be an excuse to talk about your pet topic, too. There have been several recent edits adding and removing sentences, as editors argue over whether the counterfeiting discussion is off-topic trivia or important details, and I think this is just going to be amplified if the Vaysman case is included. If you can discuss the Vaysman case without it turning into an off-topic rant about counterfeiting, then I might support its inclusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've always indicated that (A) it should be below the main generic case (Uggs-N-Rugs) among the bullet points; (B) it should have less space than the main generic case, and be about the size of the Luda Productions case; and (C) it should be the only counterfeiting case added. I have repeatedly offered this compromise. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The three different legal websites are all copies of the same article. If you read the textbook you are quoting, "Australian Business Law 2012", you may notice that the case is used as an example of trademark infringement that is separate from the trademark dispute and it doesn't mention any generic defense. The book specifically says the trademark which is protected is UGG Australia over an oval sun with flames under the sun (a composite trademark). There are no restrictions on the words used such as "Ugg boots." The Vaysmans did not use a generic defence for their 2003 offense. Six of the 22 defendants used it first, not in a trial but in Deckers 2009 application for summary judgment on four offences that violated the previous trials Terms of Settlement. The Vaysmans generic defence was struck out and summary judgment was given on trademark infringement only, Deckers lost on the other three points and had to pay 2/3 of the Vaysmans costs with the case ordered to go to trial. There were several trials and the generic defence was not used at any of them. The media did not consider the case notable enough to report on until the criminal charges and then none mentioned any defense when reporting the case. It is an interesting counterfeit case but definitely not a notable generic case. Wayne (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/note. It would be wise and the proper couse not to add/edit cases that are not clear and undisputed cases of Trademark vs. generic as long as this RFC is running. Only after we have a clear outcome it can be desided what to add or not. Jumping ahead is in disregard of the RFC and disruptive as there is not deadline on Wiki.
  talk
  ) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another comment/observation: This thread is nothing short of just avoiding the RFC restrictions set by uninvolved admin
  talk
  ) 01:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From Dpmuk, 8 May 2013: Comments on new evedience etc are reasonable as long as they don't become personal attacks etc ... Sorry you don't like it. See

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk

) 03:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My take on this at the moment is that it is on the very edge of what made the last RfC such a mess, but I don't think it's quite there yet which is why I've held back from saying anything. I also note that there's been a lot of comments from people either not involved or not involved so heavily in the last RfC which is making things more complicated but at the same time will help form a consensus. I think Phoenix and Winslow has made his point, offered a compromise and that it would probably now be best for them to wait and see what the response is - meaning wait for several responses and see if there's a trend. I would also note that they've been a bit selective in their quoting of me and not quoted form my last post where I advised them to let things be - I'm going to assume good faith here but wanted to point that out.

I also think Liangshan Yi and, to a lesser extent, NinjaRobotPirate, would be well advised to read my close of the last RfC and try to abide by what I say there - i.e. make your point well and concisely and then let others comment rather than try to win every argument. I think Liangshan Yi comments above (especially "If you rely on policy, you will see clearly. We are right.") could be seen as inflammatory but put this down to English not being their native language and suggest that other editors consider this point too.

If I had to sum up what I just said I think this thread has probably been a useful addition as I believe it's added something new to the discussion. That said I think those that have already commented in it are probably best leaving it be now that they have made their view known. Dpmuk (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. As I look at my recent posts, they seem to have grown increasingly more confrontational and rude over time. I'd like to apologize to everyone here, and I think I'll just do what dpmuk suggested and find something else to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy arguments

I have just noticed that an editor has made some very serious claims on another page regarding this RFC which includes material previously redacted by an admin per

. This editor has also stated his view that if this closure is made on the basis of numbers rather than policy he would consider it to be an improper closure. He appears confused regarding the applicable policies so I believe the relevant policies should be expressed more clearly than requiring editors to search the discussions.

• The support editors quote
  WP: PRECISION: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article…" and WP:Scope
  : "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV."
• The oppose editors point out that
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  : "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… In many cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic."
• Per WP :Closing discussions: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy."
  I'm not rejecting the support criteria, I believe that both sides have quoted relevant policies supporting their vote, it is up to the closer to decide if a policy doesn't apply. Regards... Wayne (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The oppose editors point out that
  WP:PRECISION
  applies. The exception language in the policy doesn't seem to apply retroactively.
• And yes, according to
  WP:SCOPE
  : "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV." The particular POV you want to select is that the genericity dispute is "the" ugg boots trademark dispute, it is so very very important that it must have an article all to itself, and no other ugg boots trademark disputes are even notable enough to share article space with it. The genericity defense is only effective in one or two tiny countries, which share a tiny fraction of the worldwide market for ugg style boots. Wikipedia frowns upon artificially limiting the scope of the article like this, even though you obviously have enough "votes" to make this POV the most popular.
• And yes, according to
  WP:SCOPE
  allows this article to at least primarily cover that topic, meaning that any other trademark disputes, including counterfeiting, can be covered in the same article; they just can't be the main event, since the "primary topic" is the main event.
• I have no idea what "very serious claims on another page" Wayne has referred to, and he doesn't provide a link. I haven't tried to out anybody; in fact, my experience has been that it's always somebody else trying to out me. However, it's clear to me that if one side has stronger numbers of "votes," and the other side has stronger policy arguments, then the strong policy arguments are what determines consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• One other thing: in his "closing argument" reiteration of the policy arguments above, Wayne somehow forgot to mention that our side, the Support side, has also relied on
  Deckers Outdoor Corporation) these editors want to send counterfeiting cases to would be a POVFORK. Phoenix and Winslow (talk
  ) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll only comment on two of the errors you made as one is related to a specific understanding of policy while the other had been answered previously.
You said; if one side has stronger numbers of "votes," and the other side has stronger policy arguments, then the strong policy arguments are what determines consensus. Wikipedia policy states that with the exception of core policies, the RFC closer is not allowed to choose who has the stronger [better] policy argument, the number of votes decides the result. Re: this article having an "anti-Deckers POV," this was dismissed during the GA review. I also find it puzzling that you wont consider this article neutral unless it somehow shows that the "Australian manufacturer is the bully". Wayne (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [I have edited this post to use exact word from policy after it has been replied to]. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy states that with the exception of core policies, the RFC closer is not allowed to choose who has the stronger policy argument ... Yes, he is. What he isn't allowed to decide for himself which policy is more important, unless it's a core policy. When the eight of you marched into the RfC in lockstep precision in the first 18 hours and voted, all of you posted detailed arguments, but not one of you even mentioned a policy or guideline at all.
• The strength of policy arguments can be measured not only by the number of policies relied upon, but also by their applicability. As you said at the end of your "closing argument" above, "it is up to the closer to decide if a policy doesn't apply." The policy arguments you've relied upon most heavily (as an afterthought, as usual) are not applicable here. You claimed that you had consensus prior to creating this article, to establish an exception to
  WP:NPOVN
  . You weren't telling the truth about those discussions, Wayne. Which is what I have repeatedly revealed, whenever I've invested the time and effort to look it up. And Wayne, whenever you think of policy, it's always an afterthought. You decide what you want to do, you do it, and then (when challenged) you try to find an excuse or loophole in the policies that will let you get away with it. That's how you got into so very much trouble at other articles, and that's why you're having trouble here.
• I also find it puzzling that you wont consider this article neutral unless it somehow shows that the "Australian manufacturer is the bully". That's not precisely what I said, which is such a frequent occurrence with you. Always, whenever you describe what happened and what was said, some distortion and spin-doctoring creeps in. What I said is that SOMETIMES the Australian manufacturer is the bully. And in the Vaysman case, that's exactly what happened, which is why you're so desperate to keep it out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"not one of you even mentioned a policy or guideline at all." That is simply not true. I suggest you re-read

WP:N. Daveosaurus (talk

) 11:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole argument about policy just doesn't seem to work. Every article has a topic. Unless that topic is coatracking or fundamentally POV, that topic determines scope. The question here is whether or not this article's scope covers a particular trademark dispute or multiple trademark disputes, and if multiple trademark disputes whether or not they will also encompass counterfeiting or or be narrowly focused on disputes about trademarks only. That's not a policy-based concern, but a matter for consensus to define appropriate scope.

At any rate, all we need to do now is give Dpmuk some time to work out the consensus. - Bilby (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• This whole argument about policy just doesn't seem to work. Every article has a topic. Yes, every article has a topic, Bilby, and thanks for bringing that up. The topic here is
  Ugg boots trademark disputes. The topic isn't Ugg boots genericity disputes
  . Congratulations on becoming an admin, and now that I have your attention again, how do you feel about the Vaysman case since the defendants (A) raised a genericity defense, and (B) challenged the validity of the UGG Australia trademark? Doesn't that mean that it falls within your personal definition of what the scope should be?
• As you know, scope is defined according to policies:
  WP:PRECISION. Nor is there consensus for the cunning little trick of dropping the "S" at the end of the title, which Liangshan Yi has correctly identified as a "word game." Even if there were consensus for that little stunt, the reliable sources demonstrate that there's more than one "Ugg boots trademark dispute" in the world, and that the genericity dispute may not even be the most significant one. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk
  ) 13:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this is an article covering a particular trademark dispute, then the Vaysman case is likely to be out of scope. If the consensus is that this is about ugg boot trademark disputes in general then there may be a case for covering it. I'm inclined to wait and see how Dpmuk reads that consensus, for the same reason that I don't see it is wise to drop the "s" unless that call is made. If the decision is that this is about an individual dispute, then that is no more against policy that covering an individual court case - we can cover individual cases where they have sufficient notability, in the same way that we can talk about cases in general. I'm interested in seeing how Dpmuk reads the discussion. I guess we'll be able to come back in a week and see how that went. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Bilby, you've always been the voice of reason for your side and thanks for that. As I see it, one rather large problem with claiming consensus for "this is an article covering a particular trademark dispute" is the Luda Productions case. It doesn't have anything at all to do with genericity, and it has been in the article from the beginning, never challenged. Actions speak a lot louder than words, Bilby. By including the Luda case all this time, it's been demonstrated that this article is not about one particular trademark dispute. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Vaysman's did not use a genericity defense. Six of the 22 defendants brought it up during Deckers application for summary judgment where the judge struck it out (ie; refused to permit it to be used in court) which is expected as they had already pled guilty in the three previous court cases. The title of this article was discussed, but never did I say the policy for the title was discussed and it was never necessary to do so because no one objected to the name or topic during the discussion or for at least a year after it was implemented. You took part in that discussion and if you had raised the issue then the "problem" could have been sorted out then and we could have avoided the RFCs. Several times I have pointed out what policies control the title. The consensus for dropping the "S" was in regards to doing so if the title caused confusion with other disputes as you claimed. How does the Luda case not involve genericity? Deckers sued and Luda won the right to trademark "Ugg Australia" after arguing the name Ugg was generic.
I've presented my case and you have presented yours. I had no idea you would be so expansive in your replies so lets drop it before it gets out of hand and let Dpmuk sort it out. Wayne (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW...What is the eight of you marched into the RfC and voted in lockstep precision over 18 hours? Of the 15 editors who voted, as far as I know only four were Australians and one was a New Zealander and it was over 22 hours not 18. Wayne (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article can't be about just one case, or just one trademark dispute, or it would be called "Uggs-N-Ruggs vs. Deckers Outdoor Corporation." It would take the name of the case as its title, just like the Wikipedia articles about "Roe vs. Wade" and "Brown vs. Board of Education." That is the naming convention for articles about legal disputes at Wikipedia.

As has been proven by the endless discussions over this topic it is best keep this contained. Its why the Tradmark dispute page was created in the first place, as a means of keeping it separate from the other articles. If ten different pages are created then suddenly there would be ten different talk pages and who knows how many requests for comments. Its better to just keep this together on one page.--Factchk (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about "Uggs-N-Ruggs vs. Deckers Outdoor Corporation", it is about the dispute, law and case combined, which is notable per

WP:SPINOFF. Counterfeiting is not particularly notable and can be adequately covered in the company article. Counterfeiting is also irrelevant to the dispute. Interestingly, WP:SPINOFF states that if material is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout. Counterfeiting was excluded from this subject in the parent article by consensus after a particularly long discussion. You mention Roe v. Wade as an example but if you check you will find that the wider dispute also has it's own article (Abortion debate), that abortion law is an article and that there are also another 10 related articles. Wayne (talk

) 06:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is a false statement of policy regarding
  WP:N
  , the number of reliable sources determines whether a topic is notable enough, and there are plenty of reliable sources for the Vaysman and La Cheapa counterfeiting cases alone. Counterfeiting cases are directly relevant to "The Dispute" since they're also trademark disputes, and since multiple cases involved in "The Dispute" are intertwined and entangled in counterfeiting, such as Vaysman and La Cheapa.
• Furthermore, abortion is an issue that is truly worldwide and impacts the reproductive rights of three billion women, so of course there will be multiple articles about it. It impacts politics and elections in several countries. The legal dispute described by Roe v. Wade is restricted to one country, much like the Uggs-N-Ruggs case, so Factchk's analogy is on target.
• Counterfeiting was excluded from this subject in the parent article by consensus after a particularly long discussion. Here we go again. We reviewed the archives from
  WP:NPOVN
  during the first RfC, and Wayne's multiple claims of consensus for this and that were proven false. He claims consensus about something; I expend enormous amounts of time finding the discussion in the scattered archives, and prove he's wrong; a few weeks go by, and he makes the very same claim again about being supported by consensus on the very same point, in some discussion years ago and buried in the archives somewhere.
• Here's one discussion at
  WP:TITLE
  ." Two against two is not consensus.
• Here's another discussion that was held at
  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," which clearly meant that counterfeiting cases should 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 either.
• Both of the preceding bullet points were simply cut and pasted from the previous RfC. As always, Wayne's posts have been full of inaccuracies. I will assume that these were mistakes made in good faith, but his claims of consensus have already been proven inaccurate. Factchk has also provided some insights into the practical importance, from a Wikipedia point of view, of keeping this content dispute on one page. Support arguments are clearly stronger, just as Dpmuk acknowledged that they were in the last RfC. The closing admin should consider how much trouble would be caused by giving in, and creating an exception to established policy like this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have clearly said before; I believe that counterfeiting is not notable but if other editors believe it is it can have it's own article. If it is not notable enough to have it's own article then mention in the company article is more appropriate than inserting it within another topic.
Making claims such as Wayne's multiple claims of consensus for this and that were proven false etc is not helpful and I would have thought you would understand this considering you were topic blocked for making a similar claim a few days ago. I have never claimed formal consensus for the article. The article was discussed and created and there were no objections for more than a year which is consensus per

GA review a year later to start editing to add pro-Deckers material and even then only brought up counterfeiting several days later to counter what you said was my use of Wikipedia's voice to lecture Deckers for being so naughty in the article. Your position was clearly stated in your following posts:

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...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...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...My specific proposed change is to include a paragraph about the Vaysman [counterfeit] case...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.

My position is that none of that is relevant to the topic. Wayne (talk

) 05:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this has gone further than is needed, and isn't really helpful. In a couple of days Dpmuk will be able to close the RFC, so perhaps it would be best to drop this thread until we see how things turn out? - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC close request

A request was made here that I close the above RfC. Although I still think of myself as neutral in this I did close the last RfC so will understand if an editor would want someone else to close. I will be away from tomorrow to early next week and will close then if no one objects and it's not already been closed. If anyone objects or does not wish to wait that long I suggest posting at

WP:AN/RFC. Dpmuk (talk

) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the length of time the GA review has been on hold pending this RFC, can I post a request for a

page move (dropping the "S" from the article name as discussed) so that the review can move ahead? I don't want to move it myself and suspect it may take a week for an admin to make the move. Wayne (talk

) 09:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be better to wait - the RfC seemed to raise two issues in the responses, one of which concerns the title. I don't think making a move will be a problem if that's the way Dpmuk evaluates the consensus, so waiting until then seems like the easier path. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Bilby. Suggest (1) wait for the RFC close (2) request a rename (it would be best that this go through the formal renaming process so that it doesn't generate into yet another edit war) and then (3) restart the GA process. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) NP (2) this why I didn't want to do it myself and (3) North8000 has said he will restart as soon as the RFC closes but this can wait until the article is renamed :-) Wayne (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to do the GA review as soon as it is renominated. So it would not need to go through a 4 month wait a second time. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 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.