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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
