THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGG; THIS WEEK AT QMIPRI


Ugg loses Australian registration

News.com.au reports that the Australian trade mark registration of the term UGG for boots has been revoked. The mark, formerly owned by Decker, an American boot manufacturer, has been found by the hearing office to be generic. He said

"The evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the terms (ugg, ugh and ug boots) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods."

The mark has been registered since the 1970s, but originated in the 1960s as an abbreviated form of “ugly”. Rival boot manufacturers have proclaimed themselves to be very happy with the decision. It is now possible that they will go on to challenge the US UGG registration since a key reason why an application for revocation was refused was that the mark was not considered generic in Australia.

The IPKat says this sounds like a good decision, but are ugg boots still fashionable?

Don’t forget…


Betty Mould-Iddrisu, Director of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat, will be speaking on "The TRIPS Amendments and Access to Medicine" THIS Thursday at 5.30pm at QMIPRI. It’s not too late to say you’re coming.

For further details or to RSVP email Ilanah
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGG; THIS WEEK AT QMIPRI THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGG; THIS WEEK AT QMIPRI Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.