A David And Goliath Fashion UGG Boot Dispute | Worldwide Legal professionals Community

Just over five years after California retail giant Deckers Outdoor Corp. (Decker) filed a lawsuit against Sydney-based shoe company Australian Leather Pty Ltd (Australian leather) The US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Deckers for trademark infringement on the Federal Circuit.

The appeals court upheld the district court’s earlier ruling finding that Australian Leather had deliberately infringed Deckers’ “UGG” trademarks by selling fewer than 15 pairs of UGG branded boots in the United States and paid Deckers $ 450,000 Dollar damages and pending a permanent restraining order preventing Australian Leather (among other things) from using “the UGG trademark or name or any reproduction, forgery, copy or dyeable imitation thereof in any way and in any format, case or Spelled on or in conjunction with “the sale, offer for sale, distribution or promotion of any product in the United States or its territories.”

The litigation underlines that trademark owners and users with multiple jurisdictions must carefully examine whether any infringement problems may arise with regard to a general meaning of the trademark in the respective jurisdiction in which use (or even trademark protection) is sought. Trademarks that are distinctive and therefore protectable in one country can have a general meaning and are therefore not registrable or enforceable in another country. Likewise, acceptable use of a generic term in one jurisdiction may constitute trademark infringement in another.


Australian Leather is one of many companies in Australia that sells sheepskin boots under the umbrella of “ugg boots” without worrying about possible trademark infringement. This is because the term ‘ugg’ in Australia (and New Zealand) is generally considered to be a description of a certain type of sheepskin boot with fleece on the inside and a synthetic sole and that other traders may need to legitimately use the name ‘ugg’ to to describe similar products. On this basis, it was generally accepted that the term “ugg” or “ugg boot” cannot be registered as a trademark in Australia and New Zealand.

According to US trademark law, generic terms are also excluded from registration as a trademark. However, and unfortunately for Australian Leather, despite the fact that ‘ugg’ is a generic term in Australia, it is not in the United States.

While Deckers would not have the right to trademark the word “ugg” in Australia, it is the registered owner of a US trademark for the word “UGG” in relation to footwear. When Australian Leather sold 14 items labeled “ugg” to US customers in 2016, Deckers sued Australian Leather for trademark infringement. In response, Australian Leather argued that Deckers’ trademark registrations for “UGG” should be deleted as the term “ugg” is generic in the US as well as Australia and New Zealand.

Australian Leather also tried to rely on the US “foreign equivalents” doctrine to argue that the term is generic in Australia (as agreed by Australian Leather and Deckers), which means that the term is also used in the US should be viewed as generic. According to the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a person cannot register a trademark over a foreign generic word if the trademark would “prevent competitors from labeling a product as it is in the foreign language that their customers know best”. Australian Leather went ahead and filed counterclaims against Deckers alleging that Deckers was misleading consumers by suggesting that their products were made in Australia.

The decision

Despite Australian Leather’s arguments, in the U.S. District Court’s summary judgment for the Northern District of Illinois, while ‘ugg’ is a generic term in Australia, that alone is insufficient to infer a general meaning in the United States States “.

Regarding the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine, the District Court found that the doctrine “is not perfectly suited to English into English and is generally used to analyze non-English words used in the American market,” and In any case, “The doctrine is merely an expression of the prohibition on allowing a trademark to monopolize a generic term.” The court further stated that Americans familiar with the Australian use of the term (or Australian visitors to the United States ) “Would be misled into believing that there is only one brand of Ugg-style sheepskin boots in this country”.

The court also dismissed Australian Leather’s counterclaims, ruling that Decker had not misleadingly marketed their products as manufactured because Decker’s “UGG Australia” label did not state that the boots were made in Australia and that their products had a specific label of origin included in Australia.

When the matter went to court in May 2019, a jury found that Australian Leather had not only intentionally infringed Deckers’ registered trademarks, but had used a counterfeit version of its registered trademark. On this basis, the district court approved Deckers’ claim for damages and ordered an injunction against Australian Leather.

On appeal, Australian Leather argued that in examining whether “ugg” was a generic term, the District Court made a mistake and misapplied a test that may be relevant in circumstances where a brand name becomes generic as opposed to a term was generic even before the trademark was registered. However, on May 7, 2021, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision.

Legal professionals for victims in Flint water lawsuit make case for extra money in settlement

FLINT, me. – On Monday, lawyers for Flint residents were given the opportunity to bring their case that the $ 650 million settlement with the state is simply not enough because of the water crisis.

A total of 50,000 people have signed up to receive a stake, and many of them are unsatisfied with a variety of issues, including $ 200 million in legal fees.

Flint, is still grappling with the effects of the water crisis. Now the fight for money. From Monday, the victims’ lawyers pleaded for more money in court. Soon the victims will tell their own stories.

Here’s a look at the numbers.

  • 50,000+ registered

  • Money mostly for kids, businesses hit by the lead water crisis

  • Comparative deal for $ 640 million

  • Lawyers charge 32% legal fees

  • Balance about $ 435 million

When the deal was first announced, the governor was optimistic.

“It is our duty to make the best offer to Flint’s children and families,” said Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

But since then, some, including Flint’s former mayor, have been saying the number should be closer to 1 billion.

“It’s just not enough for those who have suffered,” said former Flint Mayor Karen Weaver.


Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released the statement on Monday.

“Our state owes the people of Flint a path to healing, not a lengthy legal back-and-forth. I continue to hope that this agreement will be finally approved to get us all on this path. We recognize that no amount of money will ever remove the damage done, but this comparison should serve as a reminder of our commitment to the people of Flint, the city and their future, ”said Nessel.

Copyright 2021 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.

Missouri begins new fiscal 12 months with file sum of money – Missouri Legal professionals Media

Missouri’s new budget is off to a roaring start, with more money in the bank than ever before.

The state began its 2022 fiscal year July 1 with a general revenue cash balance of nearly $2.4 billion, the state budget office said Wednesday.

That shattered the old record of nearly $1.5 billion for the fiscal year that started in July 1998, though the old high mark was still slightly larger when viewed as a percentage of state revenue received at the time.

State Budget Director Dan Haug said Missouri’s large intake was due partly to the coronavirus. Because of the pandemic-induced recession, the state delayed last year’s deadline for individual income taxes until July 15, 2020, meaning it received two tax payments during the 2021 fiscal year.

Haug said income and sales taxes collections also fared significantly better than expected. The 6.7% sales tax growth indicates that people were shopping more during the pandemic, he said.

“Revenues were really, really good — much, much better than we did anticipate,” Haug said.

In December, state officials had forecast 14% growth for the 2021 fiscal year that ended June 30, Haug said. Instead, revenues grew by nearly 26%.

Like this article? In print and online, Missouri Lawyers Media provides the latest in-depth coverage of the state’s legal community. Start your subscription here.

Attorneys for Johnny Depp enchantment ‘spouse beater’ ruling in UK | Leisure

Johnny Depp supporters hold a banner in front of the High Court in London on Thursday March 18, 2021. Johnny Depp’s attempt to overturn a damned decision that he attacked his ex-wife Amber Heard and put her in fear for her life will be ruled by the appellate court on Thursday.

The media will wait outside the High Court in London on Thursday March 18, 2021. Johnny Depp’s attempt to overturn a damn decision that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard and put her in fear for her life is under review in the appeals court Thursday.

LONDON (AP) – Johnny Depp’s lawyers have overturned a UK court ruling attacking his ex-wife Amber Heard, arguing Thursday that Heard did not have her entire $ 7 million divorce settlement for charity Donated to purposes as she claimed.

The Hollywood star is seeking permission to appeal the November ruling in his defamation lawsuit against The Sun newspaper for being referred to as a “bully” in an April 2018 article. Depp lost the case in July after a three-week trial.

Supreme Court Justice Andrew Nicol ruled that attorneys for Sun-publisher News Group Newspapers proved during the trial that the allegations against Depp in an April 2018 article are “essentially true”.

The judge ruled that 57-year-old Depp Heard had been attacked a dozen times and she feared for her life three times.

On Thursday, Depp’s attorneys argued for an appeal based on new evidence that Heard had not donated the full amount of her $ 7 million divorce settlement to two charities.

Attorney Andrew Caldecott said the fundraising claims “gave Heard a significant boost to her credibility as a person” and “tipped the scales against Mr. Depp from the start”.

“It’s a wrong plus for her and a wrong minus for him,” he told the judge.