UGG Lawsuit: Trademark Fight, Deckers Ruling, and Australian Backlash

The UGG lawsuit story is really a series of trademark cases brought by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the American owner of the UGG brand, against Australian bootmakers who use the word “ugg” to sell sheepskin footwear outside Australia. The dispute hinges on a geographic split in trademark law: in Australia, “ugg” is a generic name for a style of sheepskin boot that anyone can make and sell, while in the United States and more than 130 other countries, Deckers holds the exclusive right to use the name. U.S. courts have sided with Deckers repeatedly, and the Supreme Court declined to revisit that conclusion in 2021.

Why the Same Word Has Two Legal Lives

Australian sheepskin boot makers have used “ugg,” “ug,” and “ugh” interchangeably since at least the early 1970s. In 1995, IP Australia cancelled a prior registration for “UGH-BOOTS,” finding the terms lacked any inherent capacity to distinguish one maker’s goods from another’s.¹ A 2006 ruling confirmed the same result after a challenge by a Perth manufacturer, Uggs-N-Rugs.² Dozens of companies in Australia and New Zealand still hold local trademarks containing the word.³

The American story runs differently. Australian surfer Brian Smith founded the UGG brand in the United States in 1985, and Deckers bought the company in 1995 for $14.6 million, then locked down international trademark registrations for the name.³²⁴

The legal bridge Australian defendants have tried to build between the two systems is the “doctrine of foreign equivalents,” which allows U.S. courts to treat a foreign-language word as generic in the American market if it functions generically abroad. U.S. District Judge Manish Shah rejected that argument in the key test case, reasoning that the doctrine is “not a perfect fit for English to English, and is generally used to analyze non-English terms used in the American marketplace.”⁵ Australian rulings on the word carry no weight in American trademark law.

Deckers v. Australian Leather: The Case That Settled It

The decisive lawsuit was filed by Deckers in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. and its owner, Sydney bootmaker Eddie Oygur, after Oygur sold a small number of sheepskin boots online to American customers.⁶ By some accounts, the sales amounted to roughly a dozen pairs over several years.⁴

In September 2018, Judge Shah granted summary judgment for Deckers on the genericness question, finding that “ugg” had never been a generic term for sheepskin boots in the United States. Some individuals had used it generically in the past, he acknowledged, but the “primary significance” of the word to American shoe buyers was as a brand.⁷

A jury trial followed in spring 2019. After four days, jurors found that Australian Leather had willfully infringed Deckers’ trademarks and used a counterfeit version of at least one registered mark. Deckers was awarded $450,000 in damages, and the court issued a permanent injunction barring any use of the UGG mark in the United States.⁸

Oygur appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in a two-sentence order in May 2021. He then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Australian government filed a brief supporting the petition, arguing that the lower courts’ reasoning amounted to “discriminatory treatment” of Australian goods by refusing to apply to English-language terms the same genericness analysis routinely applied to foreign-language ones.⁵ On December 6, 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.⁹

Beyond the $450,000 award, Oygur faced roughly $3 million in legal fees owed to Deckers, bringing his liability to about $3.4 million. He reported that the case exhausted his savings and left him facing personal bankruptcy and company liquidation.⁶ He has continued to sell sheepskin boots online, now labeled as “sheepskin boots” rather than “uggs” for American customers. “That word belongs to Australia,” Oygur said.⁴

Other Enforcement Cases

Australian Leather is the case with the fullest legal record, but it isn’t the only one. Around 1998, Deckers sued Koolaburra in California for marketing boots as “Australian Ug Boots.” The court sided with Deckers, finding that American consumers would be confused and rejecting the argument that Australia’s generic ruling should undermine U.S. trademark protection.¹

In December 2010, Deckers sued Emu Australia in Los Angeles federal court, alleging Emu described its footwear as “ugg boots” on its U.S. website. Emu countered that “ugg” was generic in Australia and accused Deckers of making false representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The parties settled in August 2011 on confidential terms; each side bore its own costs.¹⁰

The most recent action was filed in April 2024, when Deckers sued the Australian brand UGG Since 1974 and its parent, Wolverine Group Pty Ltd., again in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-03164).³ Rather than litigate against a multibillion-dollar company, UGG Since 1974 announced in January 2025 that it would rebrand as “Since 74” for all markets outside Australia and New Zealand, added a disclaimer that it has “no affiliation with UGG®,” and explained in a blog post that the change was made “to avoid legal issues surrounding the Ugg trademark abroad.”¹¹ The products stayed the same. The case was dismissed with prejudice on August 25, 2025, after settlement, with each side bearing its own costs.¹²

Backlash in Australia

Deckers’ enforcement campaign has drawn substantial criticism at home for the Australian makers. The Australian Sheepskin Association, formed in 2005, has argued the restrictions “stifle our marketing opportunities outside of Australia.” Perth-based Uggs-N-Rugs, which won the 2006 Australian ruling, has closed.¹³ Many smaller operations have stopped selling to American customers rather than risk a fight with Deckers.⁴

Political responses have gone nowhere so far. Former South Australian senator Nick Xenophon proposed legislation to protect the word and lobbied to have it designated as a certification mark on the model of “champagne.”¹ Competition and consumer law commentators have urged the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to examine whether Deckers’ marketing inside Australia is misleading.¹⁴ Neither effort has changed the law.

Where Things Stand Now

American courts have settled the question for the U.S. market: “ugg” is a brand there, not a generic term, and the Supreme Court’s 2021 denial ended the strongest legal challenge Australian makers had. Deckers holds UGG trademarks in more than 130 countries.¹⁵ Australian manufacturers remain free to use the word at home, but any company that wants to sell sheepskin boots internationally under the “ugg” name faces the same exposure Eddie Oygur and UGG Since 1974 ran into.

1
Sterne Kessler. Ugh or UGG: Another Trademark Dispute
2
Garson Law. Generic Here and There but Not Everywhere: An Uggly Trademark Dispute
3
Business Insider. Ugg Boot Maker Since 1974 Rebrands Amid Trademark Battle With Deckers
4
NPR. Ugg Trademark Dispute
5
Reuters. US Supreme Court Won’t Review UGG Maker’s Trademark Win
6
ABC News Australia. Australian Ugg Boot Maker Loses Supreme Court Bid
7
U.S. Supreme Court. Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., Petition for Writ of Certiorari
8
ILN IP Insider. A David and Goliath Style UGG Boot Dispute
9
U.S. Supreme Court. Docket No. 21-513, Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
10
WWD. Deckers and Emu Settle Trademark Lawsuit
11
WWD. Ugg Since 1974 Changes Name Amid Deckers Legal Battle
12
Docket Alarm. Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Wolverine Group Pty Ltd, Case No. 1:24-cv-03164
13
The Sydney Morning Herald. Inside the Uggly Fight Over Australia’s Iconic Sheepskin Boots
14
NSW Courts. US vs Australia: Battle Over the Ugg Boot
15
IPWatchdog. UGG Trademark Battle: Lesson in Global Brand Protection