UGG vs Uggs Since 1974 and the Global Fight Over a ‘Generic’ Boot Name

The trademark conflict between the American giant Deckers Outdoor Corporation (owner of the UGG brand) and Australian manufacturers like Uggs Since 1974 is a seminal case in international intellectual property (IP) law. It highlights the friction between local cultural heritage and global commercial legal frameworks.

1. What Happened: UGG vs. Since 1964

In Australia, the term “ugg” (or “ug”, “ugh”) has been used since the early 20th century to describe a specific style of flat soled, sheepskin boot. To Australians, “ugg” is a generic noun, similar to “sneakers” or “sandals.” Because it is a generic term, no single company can own the word “ugg” within Australia; any manufacturer can produce and sell “ugg boots.” 

However, the global landscape is different. In the late 1970s, Australian surfer Brian Smith brought sheepskin boots to the United States and registered the “UGG” trademark. This trademark was eventually acquired by the American company Deckers Outdoor Corporation in 1995. Deckers aggressively expanded the brand globally and registered the “UGG” trademark in over 130 countries.

The Conflict of Laws

The dispute arises from a legal principle called territoriality. A trademark registered in one country does not automatically grant rights in another, and a term that is generic in one country (Australia) can be a protected brand name in another (the United States). When Australian manufacturers tried to sell their “ugg boots” to international customers online or in stores, Deckers sued them for trademark infringement.

The Turning Point for “Uggs Since 1974”

The Australian brand Uggs Since 1974, a third generation family business, found itself in the crosshairs of this global legal battle. Despite their name reflecting their long history of manufacturing, they were legally barred from using the word “Ugg” when selling to customers outside of Australia and New Zealand. In early 2025, after years of legal pressure and observing the financial ruin of other Australian manufacturers who fought Deckers in court (such as Eddie Oygur), the brand announced it would rebrand as “Since 74” for all international operations.

2. Why the Name Change to “Since 74”?

The transition to “Since 74” for international sales was a strategic survival move. The primary reasons include:

• Legal Injunctions: U.S. courts have consistently ruled in favor of Deckers, stating that the “doctrine of foreign equivalents” does not apply to generic terms from other English speaking countries if the U.S. public perceives the term as a brand.
• Financial Risk: Fighting a trademark case in the  U.S. is prohibitively expensive. Another manufacturer, Eddie Oygur, was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and millions in legal fees after losing his case against Deckers.
• Digital Borderlessness: Because the brand sells via the internet, its Australian website is accessible to  U.S. and European customers. Using the word “Ugg” on a website that ships to the  U.S. constitutes trademark infringement in the eyes of  U.S. law.
• Brand Distinction: By rebranding to “Since 74,” the company can highlight its heritage and “Australian Made” status without using the litigious “Ugg” keyword, allowing them to market freely on social media and global ecommerce platforms.

3. Lessons for Other Brands

The UGG saga offers critical lessons for business owners and brand managers operating in a globalized economy.

A. The Principle of Territoriality

Trademarks are not “universal.” A brand must secure its rights in every individual market it intends to enter. Just because you have operated under a name for decades in your home country does not give you a legal right to that name in a foreign market where someone else has registered it first.

B. The Risk of Genericization

If a brand name becomes too successful and starts being used as the common name for the product itself (like “Kleenex” or “Escalator”), it risks losing its trademark protection. Conversely, if your brand is based on a generic term in your home country, you face an uphill battle protecting it or even using it internationally if a competitor registers it as a trademark elsewhere.

C. First to File vs. First to Use

While some countries (like the  U.S. and Australia) recognize “common law” rights based on who used the name first, many others are “first to file” jurisdictions. If you do not register your trademark early, a “trademark squatter” or a competitor could register it first, effectively locking you out of that market.

D. Cultural Sustainability and IP

Brands with deep cultural roots must be wary of how global IP laws might “colonize” local terms. For Australian makers, the “Ugg” boot is a piece of cultural heritage. For Deckers, it is a multi billion dollar asset. When these two values clash, the entity with the registered trademark and the larger legal budget almost always wins. 

“The UGG case is a cautionary tale that in the world of international trade, legal registration often trumps historical truth.”

Summary of Lessons Learned