Trademark Infringer Gets the Boot
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.19
These boots were made for walkin’– no not your ugg boots, my UGG® boots.
On May 10, 2019, an eight-person jury in Illinois federal court found Sydney-based company Australian Leather Ltd. and owner Adnan Oygur liable for willful infringement of the “UGG” trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 3,050,925), registered to Deckers Outdoor Corporation since 2005.
In Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd, 1:16-cv-03676 (N.D. Ill.), Oygur, accused of selling 12 pairs of boots called “ugg boots” online to U.S. customers, was ordered to pay Deckers $450,000 in statutory damages and possibly millions more in attorney’s fees. During the four-day trial, Oygur tried—but ultimately failed—to convince the Illinois jury that in Australia, “ugg” is a generic term for the sheepskin boot style of footwear, claiming it should never have been granted trademark protection in the first place. He based this argument, in part, on his 35 years of experience in the sheepskinindustry and 20 years of manufacturing the “ugg boots.”
Deckers’ victory perhaps showcases the importance for brand owners to actively and aggressively police and protect their trademarks, lest a rogue infringer, however sympathetic, chip away at their brand—and its attendant intellectual property rights.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
