Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 11 June 2013

Ugg boots trademark dispute was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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: 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 Misplaced Pages: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 "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)"
• 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 Misplaced Pages? 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!!!!!!!. 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. Jimbo found no BLP problem but stubbed the article "temporarily" two weeks later on the grounds that the article discussed the arrest of the Danes before revealing they were innocent when it should have been the other way around. The admin discussion went on for almost eight weeks before it was decided the article would remain stubbed primarily due to concerns regarding the reliability of the Laotian Government as a source and to a lessor extent the Danes owns website. There was nothing negative of the Danes in the article and the Danes themselves did not object to the article other than on specific points which were largely corrected. Bringing up unrelated articles I've been involved in previously in a way to imply that I did something wrong is both childish and despicable behavior, especially as you have been told not to do it on previous dispute boards. Wayne (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, nobody believes you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Its not related to this discussion, but the Danes did not want the article up on Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. In the rest of the world, "trademark disputes" or "trademark infringements" or "trademark battles" or "intellectual property disputes" that involve ugg style boots are almost always counterfeiting cases. Here are just a few reliable sources to support that statement.

This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute": And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article: :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one: Raise your eyes beyond Australia's shores, Wayne. In the rest of the world, the term "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is a term that includes counterfeiting, no matter what you wanted it to mean. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, dude. Until now, I've been using four search terms: "ugg," "trademark," "dispute," and "counterfeit." Look at what happens when I take out the word "ugg": "Trademark dispute" may mean "generic" in Australia, but in the rest of the English-speaking world, the topical scope clearly includes "counterfeiting." 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, "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 sections. Ugg boots doesn't have a counterfeits section while both the other articles do. In both, the counterfeit section is a separate section from the Trademark dispute section so readers have no confusion over what this article covers. Wayne (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Counterfeiting has been described as a trademark dispute on several reliable source websites, linked above. Including a single, highly notable counterfeiting case as an example is appropriate. And it's important to note that while one judge in one country (the Netherlands) excluded the generic defense from one counterfeiting case, trademark laws differ from country to country. Criminals manufacturing or selling counterfeit UGGs in any one of over 130 other countries that are not the Netherlands are still free to argue the genericity defense, and judges in those countries may rule in their favor. For all these reasons, the title does not have to be changed to include one sample counterfeiting case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

While counterfeiting is a trademark infringement it is not a trademark dispute, it is an intellectual property dispute. However, there is no real dispute, can you cite even one case which found in favour of counterfeits? Counterfeiting is prosecuted under copyright law not trademark law. Wayne (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, my search did turn up one case. A Deckers intellectual property lawyer sued a Chinese company for selling counterfeits after he bought a pair of UGGs from them that had dodgy trademark tags. The case was dismissed after it was found that the company was an authorized distributor for Deckers and that the tags were faulty due to poor quality control. That case was legitimately disputed but it doesn't invalidate my position. Wayne (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a counterfeiting see also to the Trademark disputes section. Hopefully this will resolve the problem so we can move on. Wayne (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, a Google search that is properly constructed (combining two key terms such as Vaysman and Deckers, or Hepbourne and Deckers) produces links to dozens of websites that report various stages of the case. It's highly notable. The fact that counterfeiters have never defeated Deckers does not mean that they never dispute the charges; for example, counterfeit distributors in the Dutch La Cheapa case disputed the charges and lost, but it was still a trademark dispute. As mentioned previously, the Vaysman family chose to fight back in an unorthodox way: agree to an out of court settlement and then ignore it completely, agree to another out of court settlement and ignore that one as well, declare bankruptcy to avoid paying damages, etc. That's a very passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges, but it's a dispute nonetheless. And you've already admitted that "counterfeiting cases are technically trademark disputes." Here's the diff: Counterfeiting is prosecuted under either patent law or trademark law, depending on the facts of the case; the counterfeiting cases discussed here all involve trademark law, hence they were trademark disputes. In the Vaysman case, copyright law happened to also be involved because like the counterfeiters in the Dutch La Cheapa case, the Vaysmans also duplicated a copyrighted owner's manual that Deckers includes in each box of genuine UGG brand boots. Your position has been thoroughly invalidated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest. Be that as it may, not only does it return only 0.02% the number of results that a search of all counterfeit cases involving Deckers returns, but the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites. BTW, the Vaysman's ignored three settlements, not two and rather than a passive-aggressive way to dispute the charges it is the hallmark of a criminal enterprise. Ignoring a settlement is "public contempt," the Vaysman's were charged with "criminal contempt" for also ignoring subpoenas to reveal their sales and profits. Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish. La Cheapa did not dispute that their boots were copies of Deckers and co-operated with the court. La Cheapa's only argument was that the counterfeits were merely similar to Deckers and that the Jumbo Uggs they also sold stated on the Jumbo website that the brand UGG Australia was not protected so that covered the counterfeits as well and Deckers was unable to dispute this (quote:"Deckers has not contradicted the accuracy of this last statement. The court may therefore not conclude that there is trademark infringement"). The Dutch court instead found La Cheapa in copyright violation for it's counterfeit boots. The judge in his final judgment also criticized Deckers for bringing the case to court at all because La Cheapa had stopped selling the counterfeits (38 pairs in total) after being contacted and Deckers could not produce evidence that they tried to settle out of court. Deckers sought €25,957.72 in legal costs but this was reduced by €6,412.71 due to double billing. Because the court believed the case should not have been brought, it only awarded €11,699.00 plus court costs and forfeiture of €686, being the profits from La Cheapa's sales of counterfeits. This case actually makes Deckers look petty and vindictive. Wayne (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Using the name of the case as one of the search parameters to determine notability among similar cases is incredibly dishonest. That's not what I did. That may have been what you did to get your peculiar result. I used the names of the parties, Vaysman and Deckers, which is the way it's usually described; the search results demonstrate that it's highly notable. Using case numbers alone artificially narrows down the search, which is what would indeed be incredibly dishonest.
• ... the vast majority of the results are spam with only one result for a newspaper article, one for a book and with the remaining for legal or Deckers websites. There are several reliable websites reporting this case. To a very large extent, Australian news media carefully ignored this case in much the same way that American news media carefully ignore, to be as kind as possible, inconsistencies in government descriptions of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Kathy Marks, for example, is pretending that the Vaysman case does not exist. Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail. If licensed attorneys post false information about cases, they can be sanctioned by the bar association and their licenses to practice law can be suspended. Does every argument destroying your objections need to be repeated here? There are entire archives full of that sort of thing at Ugg boots. Perhaps I should just post a link.
• Your explanation of the La Cheapa case is, to be as kind as possible, rubbish. How did the Dutch judge reach the conclusion that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, if La Cheapa hadn't tried to use it? Like other counterfeiting cases discussed in the many reliable sources I've linked above, La Cheapa defines counterfeiting as a trademark dispute. In almost all cases, it involves trademarks. And when it goes to court, it's a dispute. I think your confusion may arise from the really peculiar fact that under Dutch IP law, the DESIGN aspects of a product (physical shape and appearance) are covered under the copyright chapter of their legal code. In most other countries, these design aspects are covered under patent law and the resulting patents are called "design patents." But in this case, printed materials in the Deckers box that had been copyrighted were also copied by the counterfeiters.
• At this link for the La Cheapa case in the copyright section of the decision (starting with 4.13), the word "boekje" refers to a booklet. In 4.20 there's a reference to an "UGG Pamphlet." In 4.22 again there's a "boekje en tekst" (textbook). These all refer to the owner's manual. The copyright section of the court's decision also refers to packaging, the sun logo, images (photos), and text on the La Cheapa website that was cut and pasted from the Deckers website. Packaging is trade dress. The rest are common elements of copyright infringement worldwide. All these legal eccentricities underscore the fact that IP law varies considerably from country to country, and when one Dutch judge says that the genericity defense can't be used in a counterfeiting case, it does NOT mean that it cannot be used in any other country. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are absolutely unbelievable. No need for me to reply to this section as what I wrote is so obviously being manipulated to get the answer you want.
• Legal websites are reliable, and your arguments to the contrary years ago were defeated in detail. Hellooooo. It was me who wanted to use legal documents. You took it to WP:RSN and argued that legal documents couldn't be used unless their claims were reported by the media. Unfortunately you won.
• I actually posted La Cheapa's argument above which was "the Jumbo website stated that the brand UGG Australia 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy to pursue a private agenda. When Misplaced Pages is protected, Misplaced Pages wins. I am just an instrument of Misplaced Pages.
• 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 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Will you support it as a compromise? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the suggestion is flawed because it equates legal jockeying in the courts (trademark law) with illegal piracy (counterfeiting). The two issues are very different. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because it's based on a faulty premise as you well know ie.: the flawed RFC question you posted and a misinterpretation of the subject. And don't pretend to offer it as a compromise when it's exactly what you wanted in the first place. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And don't alter other editors posts. You have been warned about this before. Wayne (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• It's a serious violation of policy to alter an RFC posted by another editor, even by addition. The editor who posted the original RFC would have been justified to delete any edits that altered the RFC, including the addition of the second request. I suggest abandoning the current request and starting over at this point with all parties understanding policy on editing others' talk page posts and on canvassing. 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. In the rest of the world, "trademark disputes" or "trademark infringements" or "trademark battles" or "intellectual property disputes" that involve ugg style boots are almost always counterfeiting cases. Here are just a few reliable sources to support that statement.
• This prominent IP law firm classifies "counterfeiting" under its "trademark watch" page and describes the act as "trademark counterfeiting": This one's a really bad English translation from Chinese, but it still defines counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute": And for this one, check the tags at the end of the article: :Just to demonstrate that the terms don't just apply to ugg style boots, or UGG brand boots, there's this one:
• Raise your eyes beyond Australia's shores, Wayne. In the rest of the world, the term "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is a term that includes counterfeiting, no matter what you wanted it to mean. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, dude. Until now, I've been using four search terms: "ugg," "trademark," "dispute," and "counterfeit." Look at what happens when I take out the word "ugg": "Trademark dispute" may mean "generic" in Australia, but in the rest of the English-speaking world, the definition clearly includes "counterfeiting." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages follows the rules, not the exceptions. In this case, clearly stated Misplaced Pages 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 ... 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Improper closure

Closing the RFC is premature and Wayne should not be the one to do it, since he is participating in a partisan way and he is not an administrator. For that reason, I have reopened it. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs the RfC is closed. The RfC ran for a week past the expiry date and there had been no additional votes for two weeks and no further comments for the past week. An admin is not required for closure although this is preferable and I specifically made an official request for closure more than a week ago but had no reply, possibly due to the drama here. You had ample opportunity to vote and even if you had voted it would not have changed the result. Please see the policies at WP:RFC and read the last line of the closure. Wayne (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• According to WP:RFC, "There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), the RfC participants can agree to end it, it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor, or it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure." Clearly the issue is very contentious, so formal closure is required. Clearly you are most definitely not an uninvolved editor, so you are not authorized to formally close it. You may close this at any time by withdrawing the question. You've already refused mediation twice with me, so if you're not withdrawing the question, it will wait for an administrator. And how many times have you admonished me for altering someone else's posts, when all I did was copy it, or modify the indentation? Furthermore, your improper closure didn't even address the policy related arguments, which are more important than a raw vote per WP:CONSENSUS.
• This is what happens when I don't watchlist a Talk page, because this is what you do when you aren't being supervised by an adult. You substantially alter other people's comments, and attempt to WP:OWN not only the article, but the Talk page and the RfC. You have a history of ignoring policy when it suits your personal agenda. The article about the Danes couple was stubbed by Jimbo Wales. The article about the Franklin hoax was stubbed by other senior administrators. Both times for comprehensive BLP violations. Although the policies aren't the same for this latest case, they're still policies. Please stop immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have fully complied with WP:RFC.

Per WP:RFC "formal closure is advisable." I applied for a formal closure by an admin as either resolved or abandoned a week before I closed the RFC.

Per WP:RFC "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." The RfC ran for five weeks, one week after it was delisted by the bot. There had been no posts to the RfC in a week. The issue is contentious to only one editor. If you have a problem with closure you take it to another forum such as WP:ANI, you can not re-open a closed RfC.

Despite frequent requests for you to stop making personal attacks by myself, other editors and on several noticeboards you continue to make them. You CAN NOT bring up an editors behavior (ie: imply bad behavior) in other unrelated articles in order to discredit them, especially where no evidence exists that there was bad behavior. I have bent over backwards to show good faith towards you, please have the courtesy to do the same. Wayne (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes when you request closure, you have to wait your turn just like everybody else. You're not an uninvolved editor, therefore this is an improper closure. Warning: do it again and I will report you at WP:ANI. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Good try. It was one of only two requests for an article RfC closure on the page for several days and requests posted several days after mine were acted on. Are we supposed to let a RfC stay open forever or only until we get a result you like? The default is 30 days, can you point out something in the closure that would not have been done by an uninvolved editor? Can you point out any bias in the closure? Where on the page does it say that only an uninvolved editor can close a RfC? I already suggested WP:ANI if you think the closure is wrong so don't threaten me with it, just do it. Wayne (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest. How long do you think this RfC should have been kept open, bearing in mind that your policy based arguments had been dismissed by a majority of editors? Wayne (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are we supposed to let a RfC stay open forever or only until we get a result you like? ... How long do you think this RfC should have been kept open Since it's contentious, it needs to stay open until (A) you withdraw the question, (B) an uninvolved editor closes it or (C) you accept mediation. You've already indicated repeatedly that (A) and (C) are never going to happen.
• ... can you point out something in the closure that would not have been done by an uninvolved editor? Can you point out any bias in the closure? Yes, an uninvolved editor would definitely have addressed the policy-based arguments that you have carefully ignored in your closure statement — a statement which relies purely on the raw vote, which was skewed by the biased manner in which you initially posted the RfC. I believe that the policy-based arguments should have decided this matter. I won't go into the nitty gritty details of that again; the details are already stated above. You can't cherry pick the one section of WP:TITLE that should apply. All of it applies, including the WP:PRECISION section that you find inconvenient, and for which you've never had a consensus for your claimed exception. In fact, your claimed exception to the topical scope has never really been discussed.
• Where on the page does it say that only an uninvolved editor can close a RfC? According to WP:RFC, "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor" Since it's being formally closed, it has to be done by an uninvolved editor. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

About the lede

Jojalozzo and I have reached an unspoken agreement through our edits, concerning the way that the lede should be worded, to accommodate multiple trademark disputes — the Luda Productions case, as well as the Uggs-N-Rugs case and others such as the La Cheapa case. Inclusion of all three of these disputes hasn't raised even the slightest bit of controversy since the article was created. However, Wayne is edit-warring to preserve the old version, which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. There isn't just one dispute. There have been multiple disputes, as the title indicates. The noun "Ugg boots trademark disputes" is plural, but in Wayne's version of the lede sentence, it is followed by the verb "is," which is singular. This is an encyclopedia and we insist on correct grammar, particularly in the lede sentence. Other material in the lede is not promotional, but simply descriptive, and highlights the essential elements of these disputes. Let's try to work this out without edit-warring. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Reverted way back before the newly warring started.
2. There is no "unspoken agreement" thru copy edits.
3. Grammar is fixed
4. You're just as well editwarring your preferred version.

TMCk (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not constructive. I'm rapidly approaching the point where whenever I want to make any edit to any article mainspace, I feel I have to gain consensus by starting an RfC and waiting 30+ days, or you'll check my contribs and revert me. This is harassment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no agreements about the lead with anyone, written or unwritten. Claiming such is inappropriate and unfounded. Jojalozzo 19:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You made some minor grammatical changes rather than just reverting me, which seemed to indicate your approval. For the record, do you approve or disapprove of the changes with your grammatical corrections? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not support the edits you made after mine. Jojalozzo 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

But you do support the edits I made before yours? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR. I can't revert you for at least another 90 minutes without violating it as well so please self revert. I miscounted...I only reverted twice.
The title and much of the content was copy/pasted from Ugg boots hence I overlooked the plural. I have no problem with moving the article to correct it but not while we have problems.
You have been told on your talk page why your edits are not constructive yet you continue to edit war rather than discuss or justify your edits.

• The dispute is regarding the word Ugg itself, not the use of the word as part of a trademark although that can be part of it. Your edit makes the dispute sound more complicated than it needs to be.
• The lead has two paragraphs, in one it says style of footwear and in the other style of unisex sheepskin boot, both of which are correct in their respective contexts. Why do you want to make them both worded the same?
• The lead already states that Ugg is a registered trademark owned by Deckers which is relevant to the dispute and covers any use of the name by them. The article body states that Deckers registered the brand "UGG Australia". The "UGG Australia" mention is redundant and irrelevant for the lead as the article is not about the companies involved but the dispute. Mention seems to be little more than promoting Deckers as much as possible in the lead.

I am not edit-warring to preserve the old version as I have accepted quite a few of your edits, in fact editors in general have bent over backwards to accommodate you when you should have been topic banned long ago. Please stop disrupting the article because you can't get your own way in everything. Wayne (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should be warned that 3RR "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times" as per WP:3RR. P&W, you are clearly edit warring against consensus. Don't do it again. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for new RfC question

Since the previous RfC was properly closed by an uninvolved admin with no consensus, we have been asked to cooperate on the wording of a new RfC question. Wayne, I think you can be a very productive editor. But in many respects both of us have been drawn to conflict like moths to a flame. I am going to try to move forward amicably.

You admitted at one point that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. You should be able to agree on this point. Then we offer the following RfC question:

It is agreed that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. Should this article include two or three examples of counterfeiting cases that have gone to court, placed in the article after the two main cases?

Can we agree on this? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

. . .

Also, I would appreciate if someone (not me, not Wayne) would ask everyone back who participated in the previous RfC, once we have agreed on a neutrally worded question and started the RfC. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the previous RFC was unsuccessful. We need to become better able to reach consensus and compromise with people who are in disagreement. I apologize to everyone for not commenting here before this was closed by Wayne. I am now using the Watchlist feature, and I will try harder in the future. Liangshan Yi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's neutral enough.

Should counterfeiting be included in the scope of this article?

Currently, the scope of this article is limited to describing a dispute over the genericity of a trademarked term, with the associated court cases. However, since counterfeiting is also technically a trademark issue, some editors have proposed widening the scope to include these court cases, as well. Should we also include these counterfeiting cases? And, if so, should we limit the number of cases?

I think that's quite a bit more informative and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence that starts, "Currently, the scope of this article" is inaccurate. The scope of the article is "Ugg boots trademark disputes." Furthermore, the Luda Productions case has nothing at all to do with "the genericity of a trademarked term" because it's a prior use case, and it's been in the article with no argument since Day One. So let's not even go there. We'll argue about it forever. Don't even mention scope or genericity. Let the participants bring that up when they "vote" and comment. I'm fairly certain that Wayne and I will be the first to "vote," and we will make our positions clear at that time.

Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark issue, some editors have proposed including these court cases. Should we expand the article to include these counterfeiting cases? And, if so, should we limit the number of cases?

It's short, it's simple, it's neutral. Also, the RfC should be under "Politics, Government and the Law" since it is a legal question. The first half of the article is a detailed examination of relevant trademark law. The second half of the article is nothing but court cases dealing with trademark law. It's hard for me to imagine a more clear-cut example of "Politics, Government and the Law." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that there be no compound questions, and that the core question be somewhat specific regarding the action on the article? Some of the above ideas seem to be compounded, with either a second question (accepting of a premise) or arguments included in the question. If necessary, split those off into separate questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to do. Short, simple and neutral. We have competing views of what the article "should" include in its topical scope, so I'm trying to leave all that out for neutrality. How would you choose to modify my most recent proposal? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark issue" is a bit of a problem, as it seems to be presenting an argument within the question. I don't think that it is a given that counterfeiting is invariably a trademark issue. It might be in this case, but that is probably one of the things for the RFC to determine. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, counterfeiting cases are trademark disputes. The Dutch counterfeiting case (La Cheapa) also involved trade dress and copyright law, but it still qualified as a trademark dispute. None of the counterfeiting cases we've discussed failed to involve a trademark law component. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you are starting on the assumption that counterfeiting cases are trademark infringements, which isn't necessarily the case. The discussion would, I expect, focus on two issues - do the other cases also concern trademark infringement, and, if not, should the scope be expanded anyway. You've preempted the conclusion of one of those two issues by writing it into the RfC. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What counterfeiting case involving UGG boots did not involve at least a trademark law component? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an difference of opinion here on "counterfeiting cases are trademark infringements". Can I suggest that editors, instead of discussing this issue and making wording suggestions for the RfC based on your opinion on this issue, discuss how best to include this question in the RfC. In general I would suggest the best way forward, when there's disagreement over the question, may be to work out how to include that issue in the RfC rather than trying to win the argument on the issue. At this stage we're just trying to get agreement over what are the contentious issues and how to include them in an RfC and everyone should, as far as possible, avoid giving their opinions on how they want the issue resolved. Dpmuk (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well. I'm not really concerned about whether or not all Decker's counterfeiting cases are also trademark issues, as I want to leave that to the RFC to decide. My concern is that the current proposed wording, which states "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark issue, some editors have proposed including these court cases" is misleading, because not all counterfeiting cases are technically trademark issues. :) Instead I'd go with two questions, although I'm not sure how they would be worded: a) Do counterfeiting cases come under the current scope of this article; and b) Should the scope of the article be expanded to include counterfeiting cases. The second question is only relevant if the first is determined to be no. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dpmuk, here's a compromise I'd like to offer. Skip the RfC completely. Limit the counterfeiting cases to precisely two cases: La Cheapa (already in the article — the resistance to that one ended long before this article was ever started) and Vaysman. Limit Vaysman to no more words than La Cheapa. Put it in chronological order down at the bottom of the article, with the other bullet points, so there's no way it "overshadows" or "dilutes" the Uggs-N-Rugs case. And let's end this impasse. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The question presented is inappropriate because it starts off with a false statement. It is not 'agreed' that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. Counterfeiting is a trademark matter, but the validity of the trademark itself is not necessarily in dispute, as it is in the case here. Considering the history of this article, I suggest that in the interest of clarity of outcome the question should be something like "Should the scope of this article be expanded to include other copyright and trademark matters?" Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it would likely distract from the topic, perhaps counterfeiting could be mentioned in a subsection but any actual case examples should be in the company article as they would serve no purpose in clarifying the genericity dispute. That mention of counterfeits and including examples are two separate issues should be taken into consideration when framing a the question. Deckers own website on the genericity dispute does not mention counterfeits and law journal articles on the dispute do not do so either. Counterfeiting has little relevance outside of the companies involved and this article is not about companies but about the history of a particular dispute. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

P&W, is this an amicable solution? North8000 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It doesn't follow policy. In effect, what's being suggested is a change in Misplaced Pages policy. I cannot compromise on policy. I've already posted links to dozens of reliable sources that describe counterfeiting as a "trademark dispute." Quote, unquote. "Trademark dispute." And Wayne conceded that counterfeiting is a "trademark dispute." The fact that it's still being challenged by some editors troubles me. They can't cite an existing UGG brand boots counterfeiting case that isn't a trademark dispute. They can't even articulate a hypothetical that someday might occur. But they're blocking a compromise that I was working out with NinjaRobotPirate last night, based on this alleged possibility that someday, an UGG brand boots counterfeiting case might occur that doesn't involve trademark law and I might want to put it in this article. Counterfeiting is a "trademark dispute," within the plain English meaning of the term. This has been comprehensively proven beyond any reasonable challenge. Concede the point, gentlemen, and let's move on. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see that after all this time, and all these words, some editors are still being driven by emotion and national pride, rather than logic and reason. Is it really a coincidence that all the editors from Australia and New Zealand are taking the same side in this dispute, and it is the side that violates Misplaced Pages policy? I am from a remote region of China. English isn't even my second language. It's my third language, but even I understand that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. This is the general rule. There may be a few exceptions to this general rule somewhere in the world of business, such as computer software which is mainly protected by copyrights, not trademarks. Those exceptions are not seen with Ugg boots. Start from this fact, and it is my hope that a compromise can be reached. Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Counterfeiting is the act of "passing off" one thing as another. This can involve trademark infringement, but this isn't necessarily the case, and many forms of counterfeiting have nothing to do with trademarks at all. Counterfeiting documents, for example, does not involve trademarks, and it is easy to imagine counterfeiting many products without having to also infringe the trademark as well (although this may often involve patent infringement). Thus I'm not comfortable with wording the question for the RfC in such a way as to include a false statement that might mislead. If we drop the "Since counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute" things will be heading in a better direction. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What about "counterfeiting can, in some cases, be a trademark dispute"? Or would you prefer it to be struck entirely? It sounds like you'd prefer a much more minimalist question, like P&W's initial suggestion. In that case, would you prefer something more like: Should counterfeiting be included in this article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I support the one-sentence RfC: "Should counterfeiting be included in this article?" I agree with Daveosaurus that counterfeiting is a trademark matter but not a trademark dispute. Let's not create an RfC that is biased from the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can accept RfC: "Should counterfeiting be included in this article?" It does nothing to point voters in any direction and is exactly what is being asked by Phoenix and Winslow. Wayne (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

All ugg boots counterfeiting cases found by the editors' research involve trademark disputes. Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? Any editors opposed to adding the first sentence are encouraged to find an ugg boots counterfeiting case that does not involve a trademark. If you can find one, then you have a valid argument. If you cannot find one, then I am left wondering why you would oppose the first sentence. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the first sentence falsely implies that the title of the article is the legal term. It virtually tells editors how to vote. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If the first sentence is true, please provide a neutral, objective reason for not including it. If the first sentence is not true, please explain why it is not true. The title of the article is the generally understood term throughout the world, not in Australia and New Zealand alone. It is not just a legal term either. If you use a search engine, you will see. I have also added the word "cases" to the second sentence. This would work to exclude any anti-counterfeiting actions by Deckers that did not result in a dispute of some sort, such as confiscation of counterfeit boots if it was not challenged. I hope this demonstrates to the satisfaction of everyone that the particular counterfeiting matters included here must be real "disputes" within the generally understood meaning. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's way to leading. Let's try to be a bit more constructive here. Nobody needs to prove anyone wrong, and nobody's argument is invalid. We're just trying to word an rfc, not win debates. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Without that bit of information, less informed editors may not be able to equate "counterfeiting" with "trademark disputes" at all. It may sound like we're suggesting that "horse racing" should be included in an article about "ice hockey." It should be made clear that in all the court cases we've located so far, counterfeiting is a trademark dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That "counterfeiting is a trademark dispute" is irrelevant to the article, you are asking to expand the scope of the article, not to include something missing. If you are bringing up analogies a closer example to the situation here is "that American football (counterfeiting) should be included in an article about soccer (the Ugg trademark dispute) because they are both football games (trademark disputes)." Wayne (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that analogy, Wayne, is that the title of the article doesn't say "soccer." It says "football games." So "American football" SHOULD be included. You're saying that since Australians call soccer "football," the term "football games" does not include "American football." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll reword for a closer analogy. You are basically arguing that "Soccer (counterfeiting) should be included in an article about American football (the Ugg boot trademark dispute) because they are both football games (trademark disputes) and the title, American football has the word 'football' (trademark) in it." Wayne (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, you're trying to artificially limit the topical scope of the article — in effect, create the exception to the WP:PRECISION criterion that you've claimed, but for which you have never gained consensus — and we've already established that you have never gained a consensus for that. I think that you've accurately framed the argument, though. You claim that we are expanding the topical scope. We are arguing that according to the scope, something is missing. We have policy on our side. You need to establish consensus for an exception. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First you must understand policy as a whole and not rely on a single bullet point within a single policy when multiple policies apply. Here we need to look at WP:TITLE, WP:Scope and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The scope of an article is set when it is created. For this article that scope was Ugg boot trademark disputes. Per scope, when the name of an article is a term that can include several related topics, the scope of the article should be limited to, or primarily, cover the primary topic. For example, Cat is limited in scope to the Domestic cat (the primary topic) despite other types of cat existing which all have their own articles. Therefore what we are doing here is finding a consensus to expand the original scope of the article. Wayne (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You cited WP:Scope. This is from 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." What are your thoughts on this matter, Wayne? I understand the word "disputes" to cover more than one dispute, so it appears the "Ugg boots trademark disputes" would cover more than the one dispute you wish to include. It is possible that my understanding of English is not perfect. It is only my third language. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no POV problem with the article. None was found during the review. Wayne (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your desire to explain the situation, but we can do that easily enough through our votes. Once we finally get the rfc posted, we can post our compelling arguments one way or the other, without cluttering the rfc itself. I think this would be the most diplomatic way, since there's so much disagreement over the most basic statements and facts of the matter. Once the main arguments are posted, newcomers can pick sides, as they see fit. I originally was worried about framing the debate, as well, but now I've come to believe that it's not as important. It'll be framed by the arguments made in the survey, so it's probably redundant to list them in the rfc body, as well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And so... the way out?

I suggest we should let Dpmuk decide whether the first sentence should be included. He is new to this debate and would be impartial. He is also an administrator and has experience in these matters. Let him decide. Liangshan Yi (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What a great idea. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

All ugg boots counterfeiting cases found by the editors' research involve trademark disputes. Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? This is the most recent proposal. It consists of two sentences. The only remaining disagreement is whether the first of the two sentences should be included, or left out. It's a true statement, and it informs unfamiliar eyes about what we know and the cases we've found. But some editors have objected, claiming that it leads editors too much and tells them how to vote. Dpmuk, can you decide this for us? Should the first sentence be included, or should we just present an RfC with the second sentence alone? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are we debating this? There are editors that are strongly opposed to the first sentence. It should not be included. Nobody has yet tried to force the inclusion of any words, and I object to this starting now. Trying to force in what you like, while rejecting any other suggestions, and trying to force in some kind of admin statement on your favorite version.... these are not examples of consensus building. I object most strenuously to this behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is only one sentence that is needed, period: Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? The gaming of the RfC to try and include some part of argument from one side of the story is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force anything in, or game anything. Stating that "counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute" was Ninja's idea, refined into "all cases found by the editors are trademark disputes" by Liangshan Yi, both of which are true statements. No one has denied either of these statements. I see Dpmuk as a neutral, uninvolved senior editor and I'm willing to accept his judgment in this matter, whatever it is. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple editors have expressed opposition to the first sentence. Ignoring their opposition and trying to ram through an administrative decision, after a mere day of discussion, is not conducive to building consensus. We're not under a deadline. Few people have even seen the proposed wording, much less had time to comment on it.

My original suggestion was to include a basic summation of both sides. You rejected my summation of Wayne's argument, and someone else intensified my summation of your side, turning it into a very leading statement. How did you think the others would react, when their side is completely unrepresented and a very strong statement of support of your side is prominently included in the question? I suggest that you compromise on allowing Wayne's side some leeway in making their case, or you support a completely neutral, minimalist version that does not present arguments from either side. Several of us (me, Wayne, Binksternet) have advocated the minimalist question, as it avoids the minefield of trying to summarize opposing arguments and is undeniably neutral. The arguments can be made in the survey, without cluttering the question with potentially leading statements. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the first sentence really an argument, or a "very leading statement"? Or is it a simple statement of fact? As the "someone else" who wrote that statement, I intended it as a simple, neutral statement of fact. Is Wayne or Bilby denying this statement? I have not seen any such denial, and they have had time to respond, if they feel it is untrue. I don't understand how this was a "very leading statement" or a "strong statement of support." That was not my intention. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was clear, but to try again - I disagree that counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute. - Bilby (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was clear also. Please read it again. All ugg boots counterfeiting cases found by the editors' research involve trademark disputes. Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? It does not say that "counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute." Have you found an Ugg boots counterfeiting case that is not a trademark dispute? This was asked several days ago. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that all counterfeiting cases with UGG Australia involve a trademark dispute. I find it likely that most, if not all, involve trademark violations, in that it would be difficult to successfully pass off an ugg boot as an UGG Australia boot without also including their trademarked logo. However, whether or not that then involves a dispute as opposed to a violation, where the alleged counterfeiter disputes the trademark, is a different question, and I suspect that the majority of cases will not involve any dispute over the trademark.

However, I feel that we're wandering into the territory of trying to answer the question that the RFC is meant to tackle. So to return to the core issue, I would much prefer wording the question simply, without presenting the claim that counterfeiting is a trademark dispute, or that all UGG Australia cases involve trademark disputes, as both are issues for the discussion to resolve. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Any who believe that counterfeiting is technically a trademark dispute, or that it's important to state that all the counterfeiting cases under discussion are also trademark disputes, are free to make these statements in their arguments for their preferred result. Otherwise, the minimalist RfC question suits everybody: Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? There is no other wording which is absolutely necessary, and no other text which is acceptable to all. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand all of this to mean that you cannot find a counterfeiting case that is not a trademark dispute. Therefore the first sentence is a true statement. Your personal opinion that it's very unlikely is irrelevant. I asked you to prove it is false. In fact, your failure has proven that sentence to be true. If Wayne would like to offer one true statement supporting his position, to add to the two sentences I've offered, then I would support that addition. But only if it can be proven to be true, and not just his opinion. Liangshan Yi (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are here to prevent an RfC from occurring then you are working the correct angle. Otherwise, the reasonable solution is to implement the minimalist sentence, and employ the most simple, neutral and straightforward RfC statement. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

All I am asking is the same as Binksternet - a neutral Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? without any claims that might be disputed. And to leave the discussion to the RfC. I don't want to dig through all the cases here, because that's not the point of this discussion, and is simply going to divert it off course. When the RfC starts, I'll make my argument as to whether or not to include some, all or none of the counterfeiting cases, as that will be the right place to make a case. - Bilby (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it is this important to you, in the spirit of cooperation I will agree to limit the question to Should counterfeiting cases be included in this article? We are only waiting for Phoenix and Winslow. Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. It appears we have lost Dpmuk and must proceed on our own. We'll go with the single sentence question and now it seems to be unanimous. I'll start a subpage and post the question on the three RfC boards agreed upon below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC subpage has been started here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC categories

I don't think there's been enough discussion on the question issue for me to help there too much quite yet. However on the issue of what category to use then as RfC's can be listed under multiple categories I'd suggest the easiest way forward may be to simply list it under all categories which any editor thinks applies. As far as I can see at the moment that would be "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Politics, government, and law". Is this, at least, a compromise to which all editors can agree? Dpmuk (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the more categories under which it is listed would attract input from more editors casting fresh sets of eyes over it. I suggest it also be listed at Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians' notice board as the country where this matter is most well known. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Politics, Government and the Law" is not applicable because use of the word trademark in the title is descriptive, not the legal term trademark, the title of this article is what sources call the genericity dispute. Counterfeiting is covered by the Lanham Act (a law) whereas the genericity dispute is covered by a guideline that courts may interpret as they please due to the fact that application of the guideline is not only not mandatory but it also does not cover genericity in English speaking countries. The topical scope of this article was intended to be limited to the genericity dispute which is not covered by any specific law so implying it is a legal question does not seem neutral to me. "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Society, sports, and culture" seem to be applicable. Wayne (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The first half of the article is a discussion of trademark law. The rest of the article discusses multiple disputes that arise from the trademark law discussed in the first half. The RfC section where this belongs should be self-evident. I have no objection to this question ALSO being listed under "Economy, trade, and companies" (since those are involved) and "Society, sports, and culture" (since that seems to be the place for fashion related articles). But "Politics, government, and law" is the place that comes to mind first, so that should be at the top of the list. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article includes a section on trademark law to explain why it doesn't apply and how the courts handle generic cases. Nothing in that section applies to counterfeits so mention would mean another section specifically to explain counterfeit laws as well as a section for counterfeits. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I understand Wayne's objection, but I don't think including "Law" really hurts anything. If we include "Law", then we might get a few people who are interested in the actual court cases that are discussed in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can accept law if it is made clear that the title is not the legal term as several editors in the previous RfC responded to the "Politics, Government and the Law" category thinking that the title was the legal usage of the term. If the title was the legal term, then voting support is mandatory so using a category implying it is the legal term is not neutral. Wayne (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how you propose to make that clear. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you have already responded in other places on this page, I assume that you have seem this question and choose not to answer. I will then assume that you will make your opinion clear when you vote. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my hope is that Wayne is willing to compromise on this issue, but it's only been one day since you asked him. Let's give him a little time to respond, shall we? There's no need to jump to conclusions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)I

I am happy to wait. I have no time to work on this until the weekend, so waiting is good. Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a difficult question to answer. Using the Law category may lead to editors not familiar with the genericity dispute coming here thinking this is a matter of legal interpretation and interpret the article title as being the more widely inclusive legal usage which "could" include counterfeits. Compounding this is that an editor in the previous RfC had been pushing that the article title was the legal usage to support his case and at least one supporter of counterfeits made his decision on that basis. If that false claim is made or implied again it will compromise the neutrality of the new RfC. Anyone vaguely familiar with the dispute would know that the title referred to a specific dispute and would not expect to see counterfeits mentioned. By including counterfeits we are expanding the scope of the article, not adding something missing. Short of an explanatory sentence at the head of the voting section I can't think of anything else to do if the law category is used and I'm not sure if an explanatory sentence is allowed. Wayne (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, Binksternet and NinjaRobotPirate insist on a very "mimimalist," single-sentence question for the RfC. Therefore such an explanatory sentence is impossible. Why is it a "false claim" to state that the article title is the legal usage? Liangshan Yi (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is the name used specifically for the genericity dispute, it would be false to claim that the title covered Decker's trademark disputes in general. It was suggested multiple times by multiple editors that counterfeits should be detailed at Ugg Australia because it is of relevance only to the company selling them. A member of the public would expect counterfeit Ugg boots to either have their own article or be at the Ugg Australia article.Wayne (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because it is the name used specifically for the genericity dispute ... By whom? Some random news station infobabe in Western Australia with a two-year degree in journalism? Or all people in the world who speak English? If it's the latter, link a reliable source, please, proving that ALL references to "Ugg boots trademark disputes" are about genericity. That would resolve this content dispute without any need for an RfC.
• It was suggested multiple times by multiple editors that counterfeits should be detailed at Ugg Australia ... But you never had consensus, not regarding this particular article.
• I think we have reached agreement on the three RfC sections cited here.

1. "Politics, government, and law"
2. "Economy, trade, and companies"
3. "Society, sports, and culture" Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this constructive and on-topic. Past behavior is not an issue in this discussion, remember? Let's just let it go and avoid drudging up past actions, assuming bad faith, or engaging in endless, repetitive debates. P&W says that we have consensus on this issue. Is that true? Does anyone have any major objections to his suggestion? I'm really quite uninterested in reading another 50 back-and-forth insults and snide comments, mixed in with angry, opinionated rants. Can't we just write the rfc? I'm appealing to the best nature of all involved: just ignore the next off-topic rant that you see and respond only to the on-topic portions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment about counterfeiting

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 arguments." The controlling policy is WP:TITLE; the section of that 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. Since they're trademark disputes, counterfeiting cases belong in Ugg boots trademark disputes per policy, WP:PRECISION. (That should be enough. But if you're not convinced, read on.)
• The same key "Oppose" editor cited WP:SCOPE to somehow try to claim that counterfeiting isn't within the topical scope. From 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." For years the Ugg boots parent article was an NPOV violation, portraying Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the U.S. maker of UGG brand boots, as a bully and Australian manufacturers as victims. (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, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• 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 UGG Australia or 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." Also links to these reliable sources, describing the counterfeiting of other consumer brands, such as Tiffany and Burberry, as a "trademark dispute." 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 for various steps in the process, when no consensus existed. 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, , 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, (), 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 and a spam page . 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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 common name of the genericity dispute and properly defined the scope in the intro. Including trademark cases would be off-topic. If any 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. Deckers Outdoor Corporation already has a section on counterfeit Ugg boots as does 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 Deckers and/or UGG Australia. To bring it up here is nothing short of a promotional coatrack.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  BTW, the links given by some editors as support reason have counterfeiting categorized under trademark, not trademark dispute. They use trademark as a category as a widely defined term that can include everything trademark related w/o making any distinction; they don't have a separate cat for counterfeiting. Ergo, those sites don't apply here on Misplaced Pages. We choose article titles like the one in question not by categories that some RS's might have applied; We usually choose them by what RS's have actually called the subject in question.TMCk (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. 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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:bad faith, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.TMCk (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Plus a reminder from the admin who closed the previous RFC:
"So to the way forward. My suggestion is that WLRoss and Phoenix and Winslow try and agree on a neutrally worded RfC question and once that is agreed start another RfC - I will do my best to help this process if necessary. Once such an RfC is started they should each comment once with their !vote and then sit back and let the RfC happen. No commenting on other people's votes, no canvassing, nothing. Essentially try to forget it exists. Another RfC like this one is no help to anyone. If another RfC is started I will consider actions like those that took place in this one disruptive and will consider blocking the users involved. Dpmuk (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)"
That was a clear statement but unfortunately not lived up to considering the off topic rants/attacks/bad faith accusations and Phoenix trying to convince North8000 to change his "vote" on his talkpage. Did I miss something? Let me know.TMCk (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.TMCk (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.TMCk (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:PRECISION, would include counterfeiting. Looking at it another way, even if I concede that Australian news media form the majority opinion per WP:WEIGHT, the other sources from around the world (U.S., Europe and Asia) that have been linked on this page identify a significant minority opinion which holds that counterfeiting UGGs is "the Ugg boots trademark dispute," or that counterfeiting of consumer goods is a "trademark dispute." 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 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 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 University of Technology, Sydney and University of New South Wales 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.

• 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 - 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 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.)
• 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. 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 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 WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, distortions and spin-doctoring, I'm particularly interested in hearing from Bilby about this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 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:TOPIC and WP:SCOPE, explicitly stated in the lead, making discussions of counterfeiting WP:OFFTOPIC. The title of this page is the WP:COMMONNAME of a 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:TOPIC and 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.TMCk (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 user:Dpmuk as the RFC "counter arguments" are placed here and despite placed notices to wait for the RFC to conclude, this thread keeps on growing. With other words: There is still and again a fight going on that screwed up the previous RFC. Considering where the RFC is going and who started that section I see quite some sneaky bad faith going on. Also no excuse for the responding editors as they keep it going as well. This new RFC should run it's course and this fork thread be closed or of limits until the RFC closes. Dpmuk, please either agree or propose on how to proceed (editors already made clear that they would go by what you decide as the proper way to proceed), and it's clear that the current way is counter productive.TMCk (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)

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)

1. US Patent and Trademark Office. "Trademark(TESS) Basic Word Mark search for 'UGG'". USPTO. Retrieved 9 April 2013.

• Former good article nominees