Doctor
Bench
- Messages
- 3,612
The OsBlog
Ugh Boots:
Welcome to the inaugural OsBlog a semi-regular soapbox slash opinion slash inquisitive piece dealing with social and slash or sporting issues.
The first such issue on the agenda is one familiar to many the theft of generic clothing apparel by those greedy Americans.
The Ugh Boot can be traced back to the 19th century when the boots were described, presumably by those not wearing them, as ugly, or ugh-ley. Several explanations of the origin of the term Ugh have been presented. A handful of countries lay claim to knowledge of its origins. The one certainty is that the Ugh boot, as we all know it, has become as Australian as the humble meat pie. It is the chosen footwear for indoors because of its sheepskin interior and inherent lack of trendiness. In recent years the Ugh has found its way into the daylight, being worn by unfashionable people like yours truly when we go to get the mail from the letterbox, or as a lazy alternative to changing shoes to walk up to the shop to get some milk or bread. Some have been known to wear them on trains, and in their daily line of work. The Ugh has become firmly entrenched in Australian culture.
In recent years, the Americans discovered the Ugh boot. Oprah Winfrey proudly introduced pink and blue versions of our beloved Ugh boots to the American people recently. These boots, from Down Under, were paraded on her show as highly fashionable pieces of clothing they were taller and more finely presented. These were hybrid Ughs, seemingly having been bred with footwear from a more expensive pedigree. The basic ugh, with its minimal stitching, had been ditched for a new Americanised version that would appeal to the fashion conscious. The end result was Ughs selling for upwards of $150 to $200 of their dollars. Clearly some Americans liked our shoes, so we felt understandably proud that our comfy ughies were being bought up by fashion-conscious Americans, even if the hybrid ughs looked far too spiffy to be worn with trackie-dacks.
But, for all the changes made, they couldnt let us get away with having a desirable style of footwear. The Deckers Outdoor Corporation decided to enforce a dubiously legal trademark on the Ugh boot. Apparently the U.S federal trade office approved a move by an Australian to register the name as a legally protected trademark back in the 1980s. The ramification now is that Australian Ugh boot manufacturers are being threatened with legal action if they continue to market their Ugh boots with their rightful name. It seems the Deckers company couldnt let an opportunity for money slip by. Our favourite woolly feet warmers for winter are soon to be extinct. The only legal alternative, the trademarked Australian Ugh boots made by Deckers, is manufactured in China.
The loss of the Ugh boot is yet another hefty blow on Australian business. Until now, the main concern was American companies buying out previously treasured Australian businesses. Arnotts, the family-owned biscuit company, was savoured as Australias favourite source of biscuits. That was until an American company, Cambells, bought the business and took the profits offshore. Australias favourite dark-spread, Vegemite, had already been yanked* from Australias grasp in a now all-too-familiar scenario.
The monopolising of any market is unfair, but particularly so if the reason a business has such control is due to the theft of a commonly used term such as Ugh. It would be like an Australian company deciding to trademark the word sneaker or hamburger and threatening legal action on anyone who used such words to describe their products. In theory, it is not that easy to trademark a name. Words that have become common to a culture, or generic, cannot be protected by any form of copyright, trademark or any other legal protection. For reasons unknown, the term Ugh with its cousins Ug and Ugg, were granted protection in 1984 the Deckers company began threatening local manufacturers of genuine ugh boots in the late 1990s. Many small business owners in Australia who currently selling ugh boots, some since the 1930s, face bankruptcy if they are sued for use of what is a trademarked name in the U.S.
The representatives of the local Ugh industry are understandably unwilling to give up an Australian icon without a fight they say the term ugh is as Australian as kangaroo. Their fight rests with establishing the case that Ugh has been part of the Australian vernacular for more than a century. They also need support from the community, particularly financially.
While they fight the Deckers corporation, this writer is left pondering two issues. Firstly: how is it that an American trademark can be legally enforceable in Australia. Need we remind the Americans that Australia is not a state of their country? Secondly: one wonders how it was not established sooner that the term ugh is a generic Australian word. One questions the research undertaken by the U.S federal trade office when allowing Ughs to be trademarked. One can only assume the organisation did not consult an Australian dictionary or language expert when deciding the term was no generic. Perhaps they thought that seeing as though the term was not used in the U.S, then it could not possibly be a commonly used word.
Once again Australia cops another blow from hegemonic American big business. What will they steal next? Before long we will find ourselves having to call the humble kangaroo a hopping animal.
* A new definition for an existing word:
Yanked: The end result of when an Australian national icon is snatched by a greedy American corporation, either by the process of purchasing or enforcement of a dubiously obtained trademark.
See also Yanking and Yankers.
Ugh Boots:
Welcome to the inaugural OsBlog a semi-regular soapbox slash opinion slash inquisitive piece dealing with social and slash or sporting issues.
The first such issue on the agenda is one familiar to many the theft of generic clothing apparel by those greedy Americans.
The Ugh Boot can be traced back to the 19th century when the boots were described, presumably by those not wearing them, as ugly, or ugh-ley. Several explanations of the origin of the term Ugh have been presented. A handful of countries lay claim to knowledge of its origins. The one certainty is that the Ugh boot, as we all know it, has become as Australian as the humble meat pie. It is the chosen footwear for indoors because of its sheepskin interior and inherent lack of trendiness. In recent years the Ugh has found its way into the daylight, being worn by unfashionable people like yours truly when we go to get the mail from the letterbox, or as a lazy alternative to changing shoes to walk up to the shop to get some milk or bread. Some have been known to wear them on trains, and in their daily line of work. The Ugh has become firmly entrenched in Australian culture.
In recent years, the Americans discovered the Ugh boot. Oprah Winfrey proudly introduced pink and blue versions of our beloved Ugh boots to the American people recently. These boots, from Down Under, were paraded on her show as highly fashionable pieces of clothing they were taller and more finely presented. These were hybrid Ughs, seemingly having been bred with footwear from a more expensive pedigree. The basic ugh, with its minimal stitching, had been ditched for a new Americanised version that would appeal to the fashion conscious. The end result was Ughs selling for upwards of $150 to $200 of their dollars. Clearly some Americans liked our shoes, so we felt understandably proud that our comfy ughies were being bought up by fashion-conscious Americans, even if the hybrid ughs looked far too spiffy to be worn with trackie-dacks.
But, for all the changes made, they couldnt let us get away with having a desirable style of footwear. The Deckers Outdoor Corporation decided to enforce a dubiously legal trademark on the Ugh boot. Apparently the U.S federal trade office approved a move by an Australian to register the name as a legally protected trademark back in the 1980s. The ramification now is that Australian Ugh boot manufacturers are being threatened with legal action if they continue to market their Ugh boots with their rightful name. It seems the Deckers company couldnt let an opportunity for money slip by. Our favourite woolly feet warmers for winter are soon to be extinct. The only legal alternative, the trademarked Australian Ugh boots made by Deckers, is manufactured in China.
The loss of the Ugh boot is yet another hefty blow on Australian business. Until now, the main concern was American companies buying out previously treasured Australian businesses. Arnotts, the family-owned biscuit company, was savoured as Australias favourite source of biscuits. That was until an American company, Cambells, bought the business and took the profits offshore. Australias favourite dark-spread, Vegemite, had already been yanked* from Australias grasp in a now all-too-familiar scenario.
The monopolising of any market is unfair, but particularly so if the reason a business has such control is due to the theft of a commonly used term such as Ugh. It would be like an Australian company deciding to trademark the word sneaker or hamburger and threatening legal action on anyone who used such words to describe their products. In theory, it is not that easy to trademark a name. Words that have become common to a culture, or generic, cannot be protected by any form of copyright, trademark or any other legal protection. For reasons unknown, the term Ugh with its cousins Ug and Ugg, were granted protection in 1984 the Deckers company began threatening local manufacturers of genuine ugh boots in the late 1990s. Many small business owners in Australia who currently selling ugh boots, some since the 1930s, face bankruptcy if they are sued for use of what is a trademarked name in the U.S.
The representatives of the local Ugh industry are understandably unwilling to give up an Australian icon without a fight they say the term ugh is as Australian as kangaroo. Their fight rests with establishing the case that Ugh has been part of the Australian vernacular for more than a century. They also need support from the community, particularly financially.
While they fight the Deckers corporation, this writer is left pondering two issues. Firstly: how is it that an American trademark can be legally enforceable in Australia. Need we remind the Americans that Australia is not a state of their country? Secondly: one wonders how it was not established sooner that the term ugh is a generic Australian word. One questions the research undertaken by the U.S federal trade office when allowing Ughs to be trademarked. One can only assume the organisation did not consult an Australian dictionary or language expert when deciding the term was no generic. Perhaps they thought that seeing as though the term was not used in the U.S, then it could not possibly be a commonly used word.
Once again Australia cops another blow from hegemonic American big business. What will they steal next? Before long we will find ourselves having to call the humble kangaroo a hopping animal.
* A new definition for an existing word:
Yanked: The end result of when an Australian national icon is snatched by a greedy American corporation, either by the process of purchasing or enforcement of a dubiously obtained trademark.
See also Yanking and Yankers.
