MELBOURNE, Australia — An Australian firm’s long-shot bid to scrap a U.S. trademark on the phrase “Ugg” has suffered a crippling blow after an American court docket threw out the case on attraction, in a loss that would have far-reaching penalties for Australian makers of the sheepskin boots.

It’s the newest step in a five-year, high-stakes legal battle between the model’s proprietor in the US, Deckers Out of doors Company, and an organization referred to as Australian Leather-based. They’ve been wrangling over possession of the identify of a shoe that has been derided as retro and downright ugly however that has nonetheless discovered its manner onto the ft of celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Tom Brady.

The Australian information media referred to as the lawsuit a “David vs. Goliath” battle, and the case hit a nerve for a lot of Australians, who take into account the footwear a nationwide, albeit retro, image. The case additionally illustrated how world entry to merchandise on the web might create clashes between native authorized techniques.

Australian Leather-based’s proprietor, Eddie Oygur, stated after the court docket ruling on Friday that he would take the case to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.

“This isn’t nearly me; it’s about Australia taking again ‘ugg,’” Mr. Oygur stated. “The trademark ought to by no means have been given within the first place to the U.S.”

In Australia, the phrase is used as a catchall time period for sheepskin boots lined with fleece which were made because the Thirties. They had been popularized by surfers within the Sixties. The time period isn’t trademarked there, and anybody can promote ugg boots. It was registered as a model in the US within the Nineteen Eighties by the Australian entrepreneur Brian Smith.

Deckers stated it had pretty purchased the identify from Mr. Smith, that it had trademarked “UGG Australia” in the US in 1995, and that American shoppers knew it as a model identify relatively than as a generic time period. Deckers holds the trademark in additional than 130 international locations, which means Australians are largely prevented from promoting their boots internationally.

Deckers took Australian Leather-based to court docket in 2016, claiming trademark infringement as a result of Mr. Oygur had offered 13 pairs of ugg boots in the US by way of his web site. Mr. Oygur didn’t deny the boot gross sales however argued that Deckers ought to by no means have been in a position to trademark the time period “ugg” within the first place.

Credit score…Deckers outside, through PR Newswire

“We must always be capable to promote our ugg boots worldwide,” Mr. Oygur stated. “It’s generic right here, and it’s an Australian product.”

He additionally argued that uggs was generic in the US, with quite a few entrepreneurs promoting them throughout the nation earlier than they had been trademarked, and that the time period warranted related safety in Australia to the French “Champagne” and Greek “Feta.”

In 2019, the U.S. District Courtroom for the Northern District of Illinois present in favor of Deckers, ruling that though ugg was a generic time period in Australia, it had no such which means in the US. It additionally dominated that the time period was not topic to the “doctrine of international equivalents,” a authorized guideline in the US that claims international phrases for classes of things can’t be trademarked, and that Mr. Oygur had willfully infringed on Deckers’s trademark. Mr. Oygur was ordered to pay $450,000.

Mr. Oygur challenged the choice in the US Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In court docket paperwork filed forward of the attraction, his attorneys argued that the U.S. District Courtroom had used the improper requirements to evaluate whether or not one thing was generic. In its personal paperwork, Deckers countered that the decide had used the precise take a look at and cited survey proof that almost all U.S. shoppers acknowledge Ugg as a model.

On Friday, the court docket handed down its choice. It didn’t give any causes.

Tom Garcia, the chief administrative officer of Deckers, stated in a press release earlier than the decision that the corporate believed there was no advantage to the attraction.

“Deckers welcomes honest competitors,” he stated. “Nevertheless, this case was about defending American shoppers from being deceived into shopping for counterfeit product that was being provided on the market and offered on-line into the U.S.”

Dean Wilkie, a senior lecturer in branding and advertising and marketing on the College of Adelaide, stated: “Within the Australia market, a daily particular person on the road, in the event you go as much as them and say do you suppose it’s proper that this American model is stopping individuals utilizing ‘ugg’ on sheepskin boots, most of us could be outraged as a result of it doesn’t really feel proper. It doesn’t really feel ethical.”

Alternatively, he acknowledged, Deckers spent years build up Uggs into a complicated way of life model — a far cry from the state of affairs in Australia, the place they’re relegated to memento store home windows, and other people use them for grocery retailer runs and put on them round the home.

“The web has given us entry to a world market. We are able to distribute merchandise all around the globe. However the authorized techniques aren’t world. They’re inside international locations,” Dr. Wilkie stated.

At its peak, Australian Leather-based made about 50,000 to 60,000 pairs of shoes a 12 months and had just a few dozen workers members. Final 12 months, Deckers earned $2 billion in income, with three-quarters of that coming from the Ugg model, based on its 2020 annual report.

The stakes for each firms had been excessive. Earlier than the decision, Nicole Murdoch, an mental property lawyer at Eaglegate Attorneys in Brisbane, Australia, stated a authorized success for Mr. Oygur would have a “catastrophic impact for Deckers,” costing the corporate the trademark on which it had constructed its model.

Mr. Oygur stated earlier than the decision, “All of the ugg boot makers in Australia will flip to imports due to the costs, and Australia will lose what’s been Australian because the Thirties.”

Personally, he had put every thing on the road: the enterprise he had run for almost 40 years and a home he had mortgaged to pay his authorized charges. He stated he had spent over 1,000,000 {dollars} on the case, misplaced nearly all of his workers and seen the authorized problem scare off a lot of his prospects.

“God assist me, I’m not going to again down,” he stated. “They gave me no alternative. Completely no alternative.”