Leaderboard ad

Passionfruit ads

Friday 21 January 2011

It's EMU versus UGG - and the, er, shoes are off...

As posted on cocoperez.com (Perez Hilton's fashion-related gossip website) last year, US-based company Decker Outdoor Corporation which owns UGG Australia had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against their competitor EMU Australia, claiming they're "deliberately confusing customers".

The issue comes over the generic word “ugg."

And now cocoperez is reporting that EMU is fighting back as they’ve now filed a lawsuit alleging that Decker’s original “ugg” trademark was really obtained after a false statement to the US Trademark Office and is therefore invalid.

This means Decker could eventually lose all of its registration rights in the US.

Paul Neate, EMU Australia’s owner, reveals:

"Decker has aggressively marketed their 'ugg' – Australia marks and many consumers are unaware of the fact that UGG Australia is in fact American-owned and based. There is a lot more to be told about the history of the word 'ugg,' not only in Australia and Asia but also in the USA, Canada and in the UK and Europe.

We believe in time the courts will come to hear the truth in different jurisdictions and will hand down decisions that make this history clearer for all concerned."

What do you think about it all?

1 comment:

  1. I have a pair of EMU boots they are really comfortable. I've had both UGG and EMU and I'd say I prefer UGG. I never knew UGG had tradmarked the name until I visited the states and saw there was no other boots with the name UGG in the shops except for UGG Australia. Its funny that they arn't an Australian company yet they use it in their name. I'm not over patriotic but it seems wrong for them to be able to do this......I'll keep buying EMU's because they're comfortable and I try to support Australian companys...plus I'm not a fan of imitators which UGG seem to be