Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 NOVEMBER 2006

Ugg Boot - 1 Deckers - 0

Griffith Hack
Explore more from Griffith Hack

The famous aussie icon, the ugg boot, has won the first round of the well publicised battle with american corporate, deckers outdoor corporation deckers), regarding the validity of the trade mark ugg boot.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Nicola Scheepers
Nicola Scheepers

The famous Aussie icon, the Ugg boot, has won the well publicised battle with American corporate, Deckers Outdoor Corporation (“Deckers”), regarding the validity of two registered trade marks for the terms “Ugh” and “Ugh-boots”.

The dispute surrounded two applications for removal for non-use of the trade marks “UGH-BOOTS” and “UGH” owned by Deckers. The decision by a Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks in the first Application for Removal issued on 16 January 2006 in Deckers Outdoor Corporation v B&B McDougal [2006] ATMO 5. For trade mark owners, it is a salutary reminder of the necessity of use of marks for retention of rights. The decision also contains interesting commentary on how trade marks must be strictly used to ensure use of the actual mark as registered thereby avoiding vulnerability to removal for non-use from the Register.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman