Many of you may have recently read that an American company (Deckers Outdoor Corporation [Deckers], trading as Ugg Holdings, Inc. in America), which uses the label UGG Australia, is having their lawyers send out threatening letters to most, if not all, manufacturers and retailers selling ugg boots. Essentially, Deckers claims to own the trademark "ugg boots," which has been trademarked in the US, as well as "ugh" and "ugh-boots," trademarks they purchased here in Australia.
However, when the first trademark was being processed in the US, and upon being asked by the US federal trademark office examiner, Susan Heller, on March 7th, 1986, "What is the significance of the term ugg?" she was told under oath that "There is no significance of the term UGG in the relevant trade or industry." This is despite the fact that many years prior, "ugg," "ug," and "ugh" were all generic terms for sheepskin boots and were so much a part of popular culture that they were referenced in Australian dictionaries.
Deckers argue that they have spent millions marketing the term "ugg." What about the tens of millions spent for at least a century by Australian manufacturers? Proper due diligence would have revealed the term's generic nature. Trademark law clearly states that no protection exists for generic words. Handing over exclusive use to any company WILL result in the loss of jobs and businesses because none of the small businesses involved can afford to re-educate customers to search for a NEW common term or terms. Don't forget that most of these businesses operate on the Internet, where search terms are the only way to be found. So developing a new name is simply not a solution.