27 ms·

Backcountry.com sues anyone who uses its namesake

• mmaunder 7y ago
  Backcountry is descriptive, which makes it a weak trademark. One defendant tried to claim they were in a different category. Why not claim the word is descriptive and argue to invalidate their use of the mark.
  • jagged-chisel 7y ago
    Trademarks are granted in specific categories. Wendy's restaurant can have a trademark on "Wendy's" (the rendering of the name in a specific font, the pigtailed girl logo - these are different trademarks than the word mark using "Wendy's"), and Wendy's craft supplies can also have a trademark. Pretty straightforward defense when the hamburger company gets annoying; hard to argue that pins-and-needles can be confused with hamburgers. But I see your point. I do wonder if any of these defendants have added 'the term is descriptive, and therefore indefensible' to their defense.
  • pc86 7y ago
    It's probably much easier to just say "oh that doesn't apply to us because we're in a different category" than to fight the validity of it in the first place.
  • gnopgnip 7y ago
    Trademarks are granted in specific categories for instance there are at least three large companies using the name delta, airline, electronics, and faucet company.
    • mynameisvlad 7y ago
      Also a hotel brand now owned by Marriott.
  • spelunker 7y ago
    One is arguing the term is generic: "The term ‘backcountry’ is widely used by retailers and consumers to describe products and services to be used in remote, sparsely inhabited, rural areas,” Branch wrote in his counterclaim petition for cancellation, calling backcountry a “generic” term."
• deedubaya 7y ago
  I just started a chat on their website, and got an immediate canned response that "management is looking into it". What a weak move. Screw them.
• dsleno 7y ago
  Donated to the GoFundMe page, because as a small business owner, this kind of abuse of our copyright and patent systems really tees me off. I could not ever spend a cent with backcountry.com now, because to me their brand means bullying and abuse.
• fxleach 7y ago
  Scumbags.
• jfee 7y ago
  I recently listened to a podcast about trademarks which does a good job of explaining why this, seemingly nonsensical, bully behaviour occurs. https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-70-under-the-influence/clip/11301364-s6e01-archive-the-crazy-world-of-trademarks https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-70-under-the-influenc...
• poulsbohemian 7y ago
  Years ago I tried buying some ski skins for a buddy as a gift. Somehow the box arrived without all the parts (and there isn't much to ski skins, so this was dumbfounding). Took multiple phone calls and emails with support, where they seemed at a loss of what to do (I dunno - replace the item / do a return, duh?). Think I finally got my money back and bought them at REI. Love their little goat icon, but otherwise soured me from buying from them.
• blairanderson 7y ago
  If you aren't sure how you can help, I would suggest returning anything you've bought there (within the 30-day return window). Also, click on their ads.
• ericmay 7y ago
  I've always had good service/support from Backcountry, but today I emailed my account manager and let them know that I was disappointed in their recent actions and that it is a factor in future purchases. Hopefully if enough of us let them know we disagree with their actions, they'll change tune.
• troydavis 7y ago
  They also quietly share/sell your personal info to third parties (along with customer info from subsidiaries CompetitiveCyclist.com, Motosport.com, and SteepandCheap.com). From https://www.backcountry.com/sc/privacy-policy https://www.backcountry.com/sc/privacy-policy: “We may share information about you as follows or as otherwise described in this Privacy Policy: - With third parties for their direct marketing purposes.” At least as described in the “privacy” policy, this can include purchase history, device, geo location, and more, though just name and address would be bad enough.
  • cproctor 7y ago
    Also for the purpose of lawsuits against their customers. "In September, the website went after David Ollila, a serial entrepreneur who in 2010 created a short ski for climbing snowy hills he called the Marquette Backcountry Ski...Backcountry.com argued that Ollila knew he was intentionally abusing the Backcountry.com mark because he had ordered products from the website in 2002 and 2010."
    • jessaustin 7y ago
      I guess we have to order some Marquette Backcountry Skis now...
  • ivl 7y ago
    > Motosport.com Well that's unfortunate to see. Motosport has always been pretty good to me. Looks like I'm finding a new store for dirtbike parts.
• david927 7y ago
  > Is it bullying or business? In late-stage Capitalism, is there a difference?
• kick 7y ago
  Why not both? Bullying and business aren't exclusive, they go hand in hand. It's a consequence of capitalism in a market that isn't free. A free market is bad, obviously, but a lack of it has these sorts of problems. This company's abuse of the system can be stopped through legislation or government ruling, but until then it will have to be suffered through.
• PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  As long as we allow businesses to bully people with no consequences, bullying will be remain a common business tactic. Edit: I cannot imagine what people are finding offensive about this.
  • semiotagonal 7y ago
    Indeed. This type of behavior only makes sense if defending trademarks never incurs a penalty when it gets overly aggressive. I will avoid buying anything at backcountry.com (unless I forget, which hopefully I won't), so I guess that's a bit of a penalty this time.
    • magduf 7y ago
      I won't forget; I've looked at them before when comparison shopping certain more-expensive items at REI. I'll just use REI now; they don't seem to sue people (plus, REI isn't a common word anyway), they have a fantastic return policy I've used a couple times now, and I get 10% back for being a member, plus various coupons throughout the year.
• chapium 7y ago
  When you can't compete, sue.
  • mtbcoder 7y ago
    Eh, they do compete. Service and prices are solid and often better than competitors. There's zero need to be doling out lawsuits.
  • seattle_spring 7y ago
    Backcountry is a way better online experience than REI.
• mark-r 7y ago
  My personal experience has been that a generic phrase in common use cannot be used as a trademark. There has to be something added to it to make it unique. I wonder how they obtained the trademark in the first place?
  • ghaff 7y ago
    IANAL. But my understanding is that's the case in general. There are apparently some exceptions where a phrase/word has carved out a distinct meaning in the context of a specific company [1] but that wouldn't seem to be the case here. [1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/02/can-you-trademark-the-phrase-let-s-roll.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/02/can-you-trademar...
  • Shivetya 7y ago
    well we had a recent discussion here about basecamp having to run ads to insure their name was top of a search listing. to me their name was more generic than this one. that is the problem with having a corporate name that already has been used in literature if not common discussion. if the name you want is already a reference to what you want to do or what you want to associate with your not really establishing a brand your merely exploiting an existing situation. google became the term after the name gained popularity, base camp, back country, and such, were terms of activities or places long before someone decided it was a brand. * edit : the two that stick out in my mind as brands establishing association with the product regardless of who made it would be xerox and Kleenex. In some parts of the world Coke is synonymous with soda.
    • tashoecraft 7y ago
      I don't believe their problem was that terms related to the previous definition of base camp were appearing above them, but that their competitors were appearing above. They were indexed well, but you can pay to be above your competitor when the user is searching for them.
  • n8henry 7y ago
    You can register a trademark for a generic term if it is tied to a very specific category. It is what allows "Apple" to be trademarked when related to computers. The problem here is that "Backcountry" is a term that is too closely tied to what they are actually selling. It would be like allowing a phone company to trademark the term "Cell"
• pro_zac 7y ago
  Similar issue that happened with Specialized and the name Roubaix in 2013. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/retail-news/2013/12/09/social-media-explosion-over-specializeds-roubaix-lawsuit https://www.bicycleretailer.com/retail-news/2013/12/09/socia...
  • cullenking 7y ago
    I buy lots of custom water bottles from specialized, for our bike business. I sent an email to our rep saying we had a philosophical disagreement with their actions, and would stop using them. They received enough backlash which filtered up to management, apologized, and stopped. It was an effective use of boycott.
  • nraynaud 7y ago
    what's weird, is that Roubaix is actually an extremely poor town that would probably greatly benefit from the money the lawyers get from those lawsuits (and it's probably small enough that it would make a difference).
• didibus 7y ago
  Why aren't things like this just addressed promptly and quickly by some legislative body. Its dumb to allow trademarking of common words and descriptive terms, can't we just have it legislated already? How can consumers be confused by that word. If I'm searching google for backcountry gear, I am not searching for backcountry.com's brand. I'm searching for backcountry gear. There's no other way to say it. This is nonsense. It actually harms all other seller of that category. Allowing trademark of that word makes no sense. Unless I'm missing something and backcountry.com literally coined the term and is responsible for its inclusion in the dictionary.
  • ISL 7y ago
    The rise of 'backcountry' into prominence roughly corresponded with the rise of Backcountry as a retailer. In 2006, ski touring was called 'randonee' as often as it was called 'backcountry' (even moreso in prior years). Similarly, off-trail/rugged hiking was in the wilderness, not the backcountry, prior to the mid/late 2000s. I'm not sure how germane that is in this case, as I understand Backcountry has only filed for the trademark recently. I don't think the founding spirit of the company is in line with the current legal strategy -- Backcountry may feel that they must aggressively defend the trademark in order to have any sort of trademark. As an online retailer, a trademark seems sensible (a competitor named Backcountry.net seems uncouth). Suing Marquette Backcountry Skis is utterly inappropriate and absolutely out of line for the corporate culture I associate with Backcountry.com.
    • mthoms 7y ago
      >The rise of 'backcountry' into prominence roughly corresponded with the rise of Backcountry as a retailer. In 2006, ski touring was called 'randonee' as often as it was called 'backcountry' 'Backcountry' to describe non-resort skiing/boarding has been in use since at least the early 90's. Probably earlier. I've literally never heard anyone say the word 'randonee' in North America. Not once. Source: I worked in the industry for more than two and a half decades.
      • cmrdporcupine 7y ago
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• irrational 7y ago
  I wish there was a bullycompanies.com website that listed every bully company, like backcountry.com, with links to their bullying tactics. Then I could quickly check the list before making a purchase.
  • mLuby 7y ago
    Such a website would likely be a bully itself, so the list of links to specific instances of bullying should include its list of bullyings. Use of infinite scroll would appropriate here.
    • jdmichal 7y ago
      Would it have to list bullying itself? Or is that the recursion base case?
  • dspillett 7y ago
    The cost in time alone of answering legal calls from the companies listed would make such a site untenable if run properly. And if not run properly it would be so rife with fake information (from disgruntles customers going too far, people trying to blackmail companies with the threat of bad reviews, and competitors crossing the line) so as to be of no real use.
    • irrational 7y ago
      I'm was not thinking of a yelp type of website where people can post whatever they want. I was thinking that all of the links would go to articles written by reputable journalists and newspapers.
      • Deinos 7y ago
        Agreed. I would see it as a listing of companies with appropriate citations for the claims as to steer clear of defamation. However, you are still going to be dealing with constant C&D's as a result of the content, regardless of its merit.
• iicc 7y ago
  1) buy something from backcountry.com 2) be not in the US 3) realise you can't access their website for support because they use geoip to 302 their entire domain to a different website.
  • pc86 7y ago
    4) post as unrelated criticism on a thread about something completely different
  • scrumbledober 7y ago
    1) try to buy something from backcountry.com 2) realize you can't access their website because you're not in the US
    • saithir 7y ago
      Yeah, because no US citizens and customers of that website would ever travel to Europe.
• turk73 7y ago
  Overpricedcrap.com
• crikli 7y ago
  I’m a climber / skier / runner etc based out of Colorado and between my wife and we’ve spent a small fortune with backcountry.com. I didn’t know about any of this. Suing a maker of backcountry skis? Well, fuck you too, private equity jerkoffs. I’m going to light up my rep on this and let them know my spend and my recommendations are going elsewhere. --- Edit3: GoFundMe for the legal costs of one of their targets: https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-defense-to-fight-backcountrycom https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-defense-to-fight-backcountr... Edit2: A follow-up article with more details on just how predatory and unreasonable BC (by proxy through their attorneys) have become: https://coloradosun.com/2019/11/05/backcountry-com-trademark-lawsuits-boycotts-backlash/ https://coloradosun.com/2019/11/05/backcountry-com-trademark... Edit, @skierjerry, et, al, here's what I just sent my rep: Heya <person>, I read an article about Backcountry in the Colorado Sun that really disappointed me. Your employer has adopted ugly business tactics and begun using its size to attack smaller businesses who have the ubiquitous term “backcountry” in their name. Please look at my lifetime spend with Backcountry as well as that of my wife. It is significant. It also stops now, and I’ll be making significant contributions to the legal funds of the boutique makes and businesses that your employer is assaulting. I wish you nothing but the best on a personal level and hope that your employer chooses to take a better path."
  • jdorw 7y ago
    I'm doing they same. I've spent a stupid amount on bikes and climbing gear from them so hopefully they listen.
    • crikli 7y ago
      Brother I'm livid. I understand that a company has to protect a trademark, and I've been in the protecting position. But there are actions you have to take and actions you do not, and BC seems to be taking it to the extreme. The thing that really pisses me off is that they are attacking people in business because they love the sport. These boutique makers are often just scraping by and don't have the margins to sustain much resistance at all.
      • 7y ago
• benatkin 7y ago
  I hope that with the proliferation of TLDs this happens often enough that people get sick of it and we start enforcing the rule that generic words like mountain and road can't be trademarked. I'd prefer nothing, including Apple, get grandfathered in. Apple can go back to being Apple Computer or apple.com, whichever they prefer. I'd like the startup community to insist that startups like remote.com keep the .com in their name. Some companies, like hotels.com / hoteles.com still get it :)
  • gatherhunterer 7y ago
    What constitutes a generic term? Could I use Rottweiler as a trademarked brand? What about Dog or Canine? What if I combined “generic” terms like DogHead? I think this proposal is too obtuse. These cases bother us because the man who founded Backcountry Denim was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have intended to encroach on the “backcountry.com” brand, nor was it proven that he failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid doing so. If that is the fair and just way to rule on these cases then that should be made to be the way that the judiciary rules. Proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt may not be exactly the right burden of proof in this case but the point stands that changing how the judges rule would solve more problems than arguing the semantics of the term “generic”.
    • pengstrom 7y ago
      > Could I use Rottweiler as a trademarked brand? No, you didn't create it, many people could've arrived at the same. > What about Dog or Canine? No, you didn't create it, many people could've arrived at the same. > What if I combined “generic” terms like DogHead? Yes, it requires creativity. If you can't copyright it then you shouldn't be able to trademark it.
      • chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        > If you can't copyright it then you shouldn't be able to trademark it. Copyrights and trademarks aren't comparable in that way; they cover different things. I can't copyright the word "DogHead" or even the phrase "DogHead Software". I can trademark "DogHead Software," and I can copyright works produced under the DogHead Software brand name. In fact, you could trademark "Rottweiler," especially if you trademarked in conjunction with another word that made it distinctive, e.g. the actual trademarks I've found for "Rottweiler Recordz" (a recording studio) or "Rottweiler Performance" (a motorcycle parts company). Trademarks have to identify specific uses: there's a trademark pending for "Rottweiler" for use for shoe brushes, and the goods and services claimed cover a variety of cleaning brushes. Even if they get the trademark, it doesn't overlap "Rottweiler Performance," and I could file a separate trademark for "Rottweiler" as a beer company. With respect to "Backcountry," the biggest arguments against the trademark are (a) that "Backcountry" should be considered a "generic mark" (e.g., you can't name your escalator company "Escalator (tm)", and (b) even if Backcountry isn't sufficiently generic to fail that test, Backcountry.com is making too broad a use claim.
• kevlawrence 7y ago
  Interestingly, backcuntry.com redirects to their website. If they don’t have a trademark on that, they at least exemplify the sentiment.
  • ozi 7y ago
    Looks like a redirect w/ affiliate link
• alphag 7y ago
  Kuhl.com has been doing the same thing. Backcountry.com and Kuhl.com are going after the small guy over nonsense. Both Utah based companies too...
  • magduf 7y ago
    Well Utah is also the place where SCO Group was (is?); this was the company that tried to claim they owned Linux and insisted on selling licenses to it and suing companies that used Linux without buying one.
  • ummonk 7y ago
    Who has Kuhl been going after? It's a unique spelling so surely people wouldn't be inadvertently infringing on it?
    • rlonstein 7y ago
      A quick web search shows that they sued Jagermeister and L.L. Bean... * https://www.snewsnet.com/news/kuhl-sues-jagermeister-trademark-infringement https://www.snewsnet.com/news/kuhl-sues-jagermeister-tradema... * https://www.snewsnet.com/news/kuhl-sues-llbean https://www.snewsnet.com/news/kuhl-sues-llbean
      • alphag 7y ago
        You will also find many more filed under their corporate name: Alfwear
        • rlonstein 7y ago
          You're right. A bicycle company, Kulkote fabrics (also happens to be in Utah, which is interesting), others?
          • ummonk 7y ago
            Okay yeah these lawsuits are really quite the stretch in claiming infringement.
• PietdeVries 7y ago
  And just in the news: T-Mobile says it owns exclusive rights to the color magenta https://adage.com/article/digital/t-mobile-says-it-owns-exclusive-rights-color-magenta/2212556?utm_source=ad-age-media-buzz&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20191104&utm_content=hero-headline https://adage.com/article/digital/t-mobile-says-it-owns-excl...
  • mfer 7y ago
    It's interesting, and I hope worth spreading in Germany where the laws on this exist, that a company can lay claim to a color and enforce that against other companies who are not competing in the same industry.
  • xenocyon 7y ago
    Another fun story: Chicago-based poke company goes after Hawaiian restaurants over the word 'Aloha': https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/native-hawaiian-activists-call-boycott-protest-over-aloha-poke-trademark-n898691 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/native-hawaiian-a...
    • jessaustin 7y ago
      "Chicago-based poke company" Everything about that seems like a bad idea.
      • daveslash 7y ago
        Definitely seems fishy to me....
    • markdown 7y ago
      A Florida-based bar did the same with the Fijian equivalent of Aloha: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45675016 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45675016
  • samsolomon 7y ago
    Well that's outrageous. It's one thing to sue over similar names—I can see a case that people might have misconceptions over products. Saying you own the rights to a color is ridiculous. T-Mobile and Lemonade are in different industries.
• imgabe 7y ago
  From what I understand the nature of trademark law is that if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it. It's not nice, but what are they supposed to do? Abandon their trademark?
  • wool_gather 7y ago
    But from this point of view, they haven't been defending their trademark. The companies they're going after seem to be established and have been doing business for a while.
  • chiefalchemist 7y ago
    Not to sound troll-y but yes, maybe. What if they had an actual unique name? What if instead of paying lawyers they were serving their customers? They have trademarked a VERY common word. Now they're distracted by "defending" it. If that one word is all that stands between success and failure they're doing it all wrong.
    • imgabe 7y ago
      So why is this not an article angry at the USPTO for granting overly broad trademarks? Of course companies are going to try to overreach and get as much as they can. The point of having a government is to regulate and turn down unreasonable requests. That's where this needs to be fixed, not by expecting profit driven companies to altruistically leave money on the table. It should be obvious by now that doesn't work.
      • jessaustin 7y ago
        Ethics does not depend on the state. In many "backcountry" areas, the nearest LEO is several hours away. Even so, crime rates are lower than in many urban areas.
        • imgabe 7y ago
          Ok, if anyone ever sues you with an overly broad trademark claim, just tell them to be more ethical and that should handle it.
• imglorp 7y ago
  This is insane. The term goes back to the 1700s. You can't just take over random words from the dictionary and start suing.
  • c3534l 7y ago
    You absolutely can. I can't come up with a Linux distro and call it "Windows" for instance.
    • pc86 7y ago
      You also can't make a reasonable argument that that's a "random" word choice, either.
    • magduf 7y ago
      That's because you're doing something that directly competes with an existing trademarked product. Windows is a computer operating system, so of course you can't make another computer operating system and call it "Windows". However, if you want to make some breakfast cereal called "Windows bran flakes", you're absolutely allowed to do that under trademark law, because it has zero to do with computer operating systems. Just make sure the box doesn't look like Windows 10, or the Microsoft/Windows logos, or anything like that. What we're seeing here is total overreach. "Backcountry" is a common word that's been around for centuries. So yeah, it would certainly be wrong for someone to start an online retail business selling outdoor stuff and call it "backcountry-equipper.com" or something like that. But they're suing people who are doing totally different stuff, like making jeans, not people operating online retailers of various outdoor equipment.
      • anonymfus 7y ago
        The point could be that window in Windows means an area of the screen dedicated for an application to display output and receive input from the user, and such meaning is generic for operating systems.
    • kstrauser 7y ago
      You can get pretty darn close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com.... > As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark. Microsoft settled the lawsuit they filed by buying the name "Lindows" for $20M.
• kbos87 7y ago
  Another avid outdoorsperson here. The industry is full of good people and great brands - we don’t have to put up with this. I’m done with them, even if they apologize.
• 23B1 7y ago
  Guys, with the exception of safety and climbing equipment, buy all your outdoor equipment used, ideally on the local market. Reduce landfill and save money. Most of the stuff you buy is crap made in China anyway.
  • thfuran 7y ago
    It's hard enough to find a decent selection new in the local market. Buying used isn't a viable option.
    • 23B1 7y ago
      That's weird because I find a ton of stuff at REI's Garage Sales and on eBay. A little elbow grease, a light dusting of hydrophobic spray, maybe a little patching here and there... and my stuff works great! Also try Patagonia's Worn Wear site!
      • ip26 7y ago
        My wife & I have somewhat variable success with this method. You can find killer deals if you are an unusual size. But if you're a Medium in men's or a size 6 in women's, good luck finding anything. Perhaps a little counter-intuitively, the most common sizes are picked clean first.
      • thfuran 7y ago
        >That's weird because I find a ton of stuff at REI's Garage Sales and on eBay. I bet you don't live where I live.
        • 23B1 7y ago
          But I probably use the same e-commerce sites as you! I'm genuinely curious: where do you live that ebay doesn't deliver?
          • thfuran 7y ago
• codingdave 7y ago
  We're seeing this all over. Even on small scales - my wife just had many of her listings taken down on etsy because a patent troll claimed she owned an entire genre of crafts. This isn't the place to get into details, though, because my instance isn't the problem. Even the people doing the bullying, and etsy letting them get away with it, aren't the full problem. The court system is a bigger part, because many claims have no merit, but people know that not everyone can afford to go through the legal procedures to get that answer declared by a court. We've gotten to a point that you have to have money to fight some battles. Which means sometimes bullies win because others can't afford the fight. And setting up GoFundMe accounts every time someone gets bullied isn't scalable. We need this to be resolved at a cultural, societal, and/or legislative level.
  • rectang 7y ago
    These abuses are a consequence of "money is free speech" and other court decisions which have moved the US towards one-dollar-one-vote rather than one-individual-one-vote.
    • zentiggr 7y ago
      Don't downvote this, look up James Buchanan and his 'corporate freedom' school instead, and then come back and say they're wrong.
      • jessaustin 7y ago
        hint for those as confused as I was: parent means James McGill Buchanan, who won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. A recent biography has suggested he had a political influence far in excess of what has been reported in the papers.
• JohnFen 7y ago
  Bullying or business? It can be both. To me, whether suing for trademark infringement is ethically supportable or not comes down to the purpose of trademarks: to prevent consumer confusion (consumers thinking they're buying the product of one company when they're actually buying the product of another company). If a company is suing for trademark infringement, but there isn't any reasonable chance that consumers will be confused, then the lawsuit isn't legitimate -- it's just plain old bullying.
• rolph 7y ago
  if your brand name is so easily confused, with upstart unknown business then you have a problem with brand awareness and its your fault. why would you want your brand to be known for lawsuits, rather than a reliable value added product?
• kstrauser 7y ago
  That's a false dichotomy: it's both. "Business" doesn't have to mean "bullying". They're choosing to act that way, even though nothing's making them. Also, burn that crappy trademark to the ground. If I tried to make an inflatable raft company named "River", they should laugh me out of the trademark office.
• ljsmith93 7y ago
  As someone who has spent a lot of money on backcountry.com I have to say i'm really disappointed and will be directing my money elsewhere.
• bredren 7y ago
  Entrepreneur Magazine does this same thing with the word “entrepreneur.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-05-19/entrepreneur-the-magazine-that-sues-entrepreneurs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-05-19/entrepren...
• dottenad 7y ago
  I’ve been on the receiving end of one of these. I used to run the snowboarding blog bckcntry.com and was given an ultimatum by backcountry.com, either take down the blog entirely, or advertise solely for backcountry.com and receive affiliate commissions. I chose the latter.
  • markdown 7y ago
    Sellout! :P
• beaker52 7y ago
  Worry about naming your company/product due to trademarks, worry about selling your product due to patents. Makes me think twice and I haven't even got an idea yet!
• jasonmp85 7y ago
  As a Denverite I was pleasantly surprised to see the Sun on HN. I did sort of wonder why Backcountry Delicatessen suddenly changed their name to Yampa (yuck) last year, and the article acknowledges the change states the owner was never contacted by backcountry.com. So at least they didn’t cause that monstrosity. Still, I think I’ve ordered things from them before, but never again.
  • milkytron 7y ago
    I was wondering why backcountry changed to yampa as well. Can’t believe a sandwich shop was targeted by them... and I wonder how business has been impacted.
• kpU8efre7r 7y ago
  Checked out back countrybabes.com and was disappointed.
• BenFrantzDale 7y ago
  I contacted EFF about this yesterday and got this response: “Thanks for reaching out to us at the EFF and for making us aware of this issue. I'll share this with the team that works on trademark issues, but in the event you know or speak with anyone being targeted by backcountry.com, please do have them reach out to us!“
• newshorts 7y ago
  I have a child and it’s this kind of stuff that makes me wonder if we shouldn’t move out of the US. I worry about the future of this county.
  • jessaustin 7y ago
    The land is great, the people are fairly good. It's the system that holds us back. That doesn't mean the government, although there are aspects of the government that should be disbanded immediately (hi CIA/NSA!). Mostly we need to put up with a lot less authority, including in this case that of the trademark courts.
• mbostleman 7y ago
  What exactly is the motivation for Backcountry.com to invest the time and money in doing this? None of the tiny companies and groups they're going after would cause confusion to customers. Nor is that the intent of the other businesses. So what's the point?
  • Tepix 7y ago
    Who knows. Maybe their lawyers tell them to do it.
  • burkaman 7y ago
    I imagine they have retained a law firm for trademark issues, and the law firm is making busywork for itself so it can get paid. And there's some salesperson at the firm who has convinced Backcountry.com management that "you have to do this to defend your trademark" or whatever.
    • crb002 7y ago
      https://www.name.com/domain/search/brokebackcountry.com https://www.name.com/domain/search/brokebackcountry.com :)
    • juped 7y ago
      This is absolutely what has happened.
  • jalla 7y ago
    Their owners, TSG Consumer, want to maximize their ROI, and lend strategic support to Backcountry, to build out the brand. http://www.tsgconsumer.com/portfolio/back-country-co http://www.tsgconsumer.com/portfolio/back-country-co
  • sam_johnson 7y ago
    Backcountry.com's motivation seems to be that they've started to sell "Backcountry"-branded goods, and they're trying to claim trademark protection for that usage. Here's some more detail: - Currently, Backcountry.com owns a trademark to the word "Backcountry", but only for retail services. So if you tried to open an on-line store called "Bakckountry.com", say, they'd have a strong case against you. - However, Backcountry.com is now expanding into sales of Backcountry-branded clothing and outdoor equipment. Their existing trademark doesn't extend to this usage, so in 2018 they applied for an additional trademark covering a wide range of outdoor goods. - The US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected that application on the grounds that "backcountry" is a generic, descriptive term. USPTO also mentioned the likelihood of confusion with an existing trademark held by Snapperhead Inventions for the Marquette Backcountry Ski. - Backcountry.com then applied to USPTO to cancel Snapperhead's trademark. USPTO rejected that application. - Backcountry.com has now filed civil suit in California in an attempt to force Snapperhead to give up their trademark. In summary, this is hardly seems to be a case of Backcountry.com protecting its existing trademark. Rather, Backcountry.com is pressuring other firms with similar trademarks of their own to give them up so that Backcountry.com can expand its trademark rights.
• diebir 7y ago
  I spend so much money on Backcountry.com, I get personal emails from a "gearhead" (a rep assigned to me). I have sent him a (very polite) email asking to inform the corporate that I will be suspending my spending until this is resolved.
• hardtke 7y ago
  I always confused backcountry.com with The Back Country, a cool shop in Truckee (https://thebackcountry.net/ https://thebackcountry.net/). I wonder if The Back Country is old enough to predate the trademark, or they are about to get sued.
  • jozefwhite 7y ago
    i hope not i love that shop!
• backcountryanal 7y ago
  Just one backcountryAnal.com away from a really awkward lawsuit.
• PatrolX 7y ago
  Trademark holders are "required" to defend their registration, failure to do so will result in losing it.
• rdxm 7y ago
  been a Competitive Cyclist customer for as long as they've been around....no longer. account closed.
• briandear 7y ago
  They are suing people with registered trademarks that use the word Backcountry? How’s that supposed to work? Perhaps the trademark owners should be suing Backcountry.com!
• icedistilled 7y ago
  One of their gearheads messaged me in one of the regular marketing emails. I told him I could not do business with them due to their lawsuits. You should email them too. Backcountry is a place not a trade-marketable name. Owning the word 'backcountry' is strictly against the outdoor ethos. If they wanted a company name they could trade mark then they should have selected a different name.