[t0mpr1c3]

They are not knockoffs. Ugg boots are a generic product. The Australian manufacturer does not have exclusive rights to the design either.

[mjmas]

A generic Australian product. But however Deckers owns Ugg as a trademark everywhere but here and NZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugg_boots_trademark_dispute

[t0mpr1c3]

Yes. In contrast to Mozzarella, Champagne, and many others which are generic products in the USA, and protected trademarks in their region of origin.

I didn't realise the trademark holder is a US company.

[mjmas]

To clarify, Uggs originated in Australia and are a generic term here. Deckers owns a trademark outside Australia and is enforcing it against people in Australia.

It would be like if a US company registered Champagne as a trademark then enforced it against French companies selling it.

[tomjakubowski]

Only mozzarella di bufala campana has PDO, even in Italy there are non-PDO, generic mozzarella cheeses produced outside the region.

[t0mpr1c3]

I see. Similar to Balsamico di Modena / generic balsamic vinegar?

Does non-PDO Parmesan exist in Italy? In the US, "Parmesan" is usually some kind of domestic hard cheese that lacks maturity. The genuine Parmigiano Reggiano costs around 3x.

[margalabargala]

Champagne is absolutely not a "generic" product in the US.

While some California wines were and still are sold as "California Champagne", there was a court decision back in 2006 which affirmed the same protected trademark for Champagne as in the rest of the world, with the caveat that wineries already using the "Champagne" name would be grandfathered in and permitted to continue doing so.

A bottle of Champagne made in the US will be labeled with its origin, and no one can start a winery and start selling Champagne in the US. That's not the same thing as "generic".

[free652]

Champagne isn't a trademark and it's *generic* in US. What happened that in 2006 US signed an agreement with EU. Obviously everything can change.

https://www.ttb.gov/system/files/images/pdfs/rulings/2008-1....

[margalabargala]

The US legal system doesn't have the concept of "trademark" in the way you're using it, that word means something else here.

And no, "trademark" definition aside, it's not "generic" in the US by any definition of "generic" commonly used in the US, legal or otherwise.

[rob74]

I guess it's "generic" in the sense that everyone calls a sparkling wine "champagne", same as everyone calls a copier a "Xerox machine", but if some other company would try to sell their copier using the Xerox name, they would still be sued by Xerox (the company)?

[illliillll]

At least here in Europe, even children know that “sparkling wine” and “champagne” refer to different things.

[RobotToaster]

Knockoff may not be quite the right word, my point is they're a copy of inferior quality.