TOP SNOWFALL

Trainwreck · #51 11-02-2009, 08:29 AM

I don't know the legal practicality of it but I love the idea of a counter suit for using your name.

DoWork · #52 11-02-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbuzz

That is one @#@# fantastic idea. Naming it the "cease and desist" would be a great in joke for those in the know, and just sound "cool" to all the youngins out there.

I like that idea, but it just doesn't have the "Fuck you, Scott USA" feel to it... It's catchy and perhaps the best PC option but I think if you start a Biggie Smalls/Tupac kind of pissing match, the ensuing media "circus"

will probably gain you guys some exposure in ski print media. Doing something hilarious gains major points when dealing with lawyers IMHO.

snowful · #53 11-02-2009, 08:39 AM

The letter apparently wasn't sent from a judge. I would play this out but I don't know shit so I would probably piss off all my customers, lose my business, and park my van down by the river.

carvedog · #54 11-02-2009, 08:44 AM

I particularly don't like trademark lawsuits and the way they have been done in the past and the ridiculous lengths that companies have gone to, to protect their turf.

I am not familiar with the small ski company being picked on by Scott (I am mostly a snowboarder and don't follow skiing much), but I do not approve.

Being located near their headquarters, I know many, many of the employees that are involved in the company. The company does support many of the local events with free product as prizes and lots of their staff are good, hard core skiers who care a lot about the sport and industry.

Which doesn't excuse an extreme case of lawyeritis.

So go all guerilla on them if you have to. Send press release to every mtn town newspaper and major market newspaper that serves ski areas. (Denver, SLC, Vancouver B.C., Reno etc) Announce the lawsuit, include pictures of the ski showing no name on the ski. Include photos of Scott holding up his ski. Explain flawed rhetoric of no one ever named Scott ever being able to use their name to promote their product again. Make it fun. Use good photos. Show David and Goliath type nature of the "infringement".
Show that Scott doesn't make a ski even close to the type of ski if that is so.

Name the ski the Ttocs or something else amusing. Cease and desist certainly might qualify, but I was hoping you could rise above the lawyer crap.

Announce plans to have a ski naming contest in light of the idea you don't have deep enough pockets to fight the evil, multi-national company.

Best of luck.

old goat · #55 11-02-2009, 09:45 AM

How about registering USA as a trademark and sending Scott USA a cease and desist letter.

Sinfield · #56 11-02-2009, 09:46 AM

I love how all the sudden Scott skis suck becaue their legal team are assholes.

You guys are fucking ridiculous. Yeah this sucks, and its totally reactionary, but c'mon. Unfortunatley in the world of business/ trademark law, this is just the way things work. Scott didn't all the sudden start making shitty skis or crappy poles just because they were overzealous in protecting their trademark.

As a few people have pointed out, they aren't even a big asswipe company for the most part. They just have a legal team that probably went a little too far...which honestly probably wasn't even on the radar for the guys who are actually designing/marketing/ or building Scott gear. I'm sure that companies like htis keep a legal team on retainer whose job is to monitor the market and send C&D letters to people who they think might be infringing upon their trademark.

Chill the fuck out. ON3P can and should give the finger to Scott (and hopefully reap better sales) but Scott isn't all the sudden the Wal-Mart of the ski world. You guys loved their skis before this, and probably will after too.

oftpiste · #57 11-02-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

I was thinking the same thing. This should be an article in every ski magazine, and in the paper. Get ON3P out there. In the end splat is right about the cost.

TheDon FTW. Call the PR department immediately!!!! Wait, Scott is the PR department.

Great way to get some press visibility.

Summit · #58 11-02-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfield

I love how all the sudden Scott skis suck becaue their legal team are assholes.

You guys are fucking ridiculous. Yeah this sucks, and its totally reactionary, but c'mon. Unfortunatley in the world of business/ trademark law, this is just the way things work. Scott didn't all the sudden start making shitty skis or crappy poles just because they were overzealous in protecting their trademark.

As a few people have pointed out, they aren't even a big asswipe company for the most part. They just have a legal team that probably went a little too far...which honestly probably wasn't even on the radar for the guys who are actually designing/marketing/ or building Scott gear. I'm sure that companies like htis keep a legal team on retainer whose job is to monitor the market and send C&D letters to people who they think might be infringing upon their trademark.

Chill the fuck out. ON3P can and should give the finger to Scott (and hopefully reap better sales) but Scott isn't all the sudden the Wal-Mart of the ski world. You guys loved their skis before this, and probably will after too.

No, we didn't love their soft PoS skis before this. People bought them because they were cheap as hell on SAC because nobody else loves their skis either.

Now, SCOTT Skis, through their actions, has made it morally reprehensible for any self respecting skier to purchase their gear.

If they want to drop it an make it right, I'm sure the mags will back off.

DoWork · #59 11-02-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summit

Now, SCOTT Skis, through their actions, has made it morally reprehensible for any self respecting skier to purchase their gear.

If they want to drop it an make it right, I'm sure the mags will back off.

Word! They better rein in their legal team to make themselves look less like assholes! Skiing and lawyers should be as far away from each other as possible, and companies that have legal teams that crank up the douche (especially when they pick on little guys that can't afford to defend themselves) get a big

from me. I may be only one person, but I think others agree with me.

Sinfield, they might not be the WalMart of ski companies, but they're certainly doing a great job reaching for the douche stars!

rdennhs · #60 11-02-2009, 10:05 AM

I honestly liked my 191 p4s....but I sold them a few weeks ago. I'm glad they're out of the way and the money is in my pocket, this is just a shitty situation. Best of luck to ON3P, a real ski company.

deadwood · #61 11-02-2009, 10:06 AM

FUCK SCOTT USA

Scott, keep the graphics as much as you can because those topsheets are fucking badass looking

just whack off the last "T" or bastardize the name.

I think you should rename them cease and desist.

ps. angry consumer directed at corporate fucktards coming soon.

Big Steve · #62 11-02-2009, 10:22 AM

This circumstance defies a simple legal analysis, but I'll offer an imcomplete primer. Yes, this a trademark issue. Scott's claim is premised on the notion that ON3P's "Great Scott" brand is "confusingly similar" to Scott's establised trademark. If ON3P's mark has the potential to confuse a substantial portion of the public, then a finding of trademark infringement might follow. Scott might advance two additional arguments: (a) that ON3P's use of the "Great Scott" mark is an appropriation of the Scott's trademark and associated good will; and (b) ON3P's use of the mark dilutes Scott's established mark.

Yes, a party who does not vigorously defend its trademark may lose protection for that mark. That's why Coca Cola spends millions each year to bar people from using the term "coke" on a menu or diner sign when they are selling Pepsi or some other cola.

ON3P has some obvious defenses, it seems. First, courts will allow a wide latitude for the use of descriptive geographical names. If the ski was named after the Great Scott Traverse at Alpental, then use of the "Great Scott" mark might be deemed fair game. Second, an individual is usually permitted to use his or her own name, even if the name is confusingly similar to the established mark. Thus, if the skis said, "designed by Scott Jones," that's probably okay if, indeed, the skis were designed by a guy named Scott Jones.

Okay, so those are some fundamental principles of trademark law, but it is a woefully incomplete primer. Trademark infringement cases are decided on a case-by-case basis. This seems to be a relatively uncomplicated case, but defending a simple trademark case can get very expensive. OTOH, there is a quick and inexpensive means to resolve this one -- by agreeing to a license agreement, Scott could easily protect its mark and let ON3P continue to market the Great Scott.

For those of you blaming attorneys for this: Behind every zealous IP attorney is an even more zealous client who claims an IP interest. I have prosecuted and defended roughly equal numbers of trademark and other IP cases, so I do see both sides of this one. Frankly, I think Scott is overzealous on this one -- IMO, a license would be a fair way to resolve this one and protect Scott's mark.

Danno · #63 11-02-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Steve

This circumstance defies a simple legal analysis, but I'll offer an imcomplete primer. Yes, this a trademark issue. Scott's claim is premised on the notion that ON3P's "Great Scott" brand is "confusingly similar" to Scott's establised trademark. If ON3P's mark has the potential to confuse a substantial portion of the public, then a finding of trademark infringement might follow. Scott might advance two additional arguments: (a) that ON3P's use of the "Great Scott" mark is an appropriation of the Scott's trademark and associated good will; and (b) ON3P's use of the mark dilutes Scott's established mark.

Yes, a party who does not vigorously defend its trademark may lose protection for that mark. That's why Coca Cola spends millions each year to bar people from using the term "coke" on a menu or diner sign when they are selling Pepsi or some other cola.

ON3P has some obvious defenses, it seems. First, courts will allow a wide latitude for the use of descriptive geographical names. If the ski was named after the Great Scott Traverse at Alpental, then use of the "Great Scott" mark might be deemed fair game. Second, an individual is usually permitted to use his or her own name, even if the name is confusingly similar to the established mark. Thus, if the skis said, "designed by Scott Jones," that's probably okay if, indeed, the skis were designed by a guy named Scott Jones.

Okay, so those are some fundamental principles of trademark law, but it is a woefully incomplete primer. Trademark infringement cases are decided on a case-by-case basis. This seems to be a relatively uncomplicated case, but defending a simple trademark case can get very expensive. OTOH, there is a quick and inexpensive means to resolve this one -- by agreeing to a license agreement, Scott could easily protect its mark and let ON3P continue to market the Great Scott.

For those of you blaming attorneys for this: Behind every zealous IP attorney is an even more zealous client who claims an IP interest. I have prosecuted and defended roughly equal numbers of trademark and other IP cases, so I do see both sides of this one. Frankly, I think Scott is overzealous on this one -- IMO, a license would be a fair way to resolve this one and protect Scott's mark.

Nice explanation. I am not sure Scott is being overzealous, I'd need to do more research. On its face, however, one can at least see why a ski named "scott" might cause some concern to a company that makes skis named "scott".

krp8128 · #64 11-02-2009, 10:35 AM

Great Scoπ

Done...

EDIT: That looks like shit with TGR formatting. As previously mentioned, switch out the t's for pi

PowTron · #65 11-02-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summit

No, we didn't love their soft PoS skis before this. People bought them because they were cheap as hell on SAC because nobody else loves their skis either.

X2, Ding Ding...

ON3P will be fine, and the ski should be called "The Great Slot"

krp8128 · #66 11-02-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowTron

X2, Ding Ding...

ON3P will be fine, and the ski should be called "The Great Slot"

and they will come with a wax job straight from the factory.

D(C) · #67 11-02-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oftpiste

TheDon FTW. Call the PR department immediately!!!! Wait, Scott is the PR department.

Great way to get some press visibility.

Agreed. This is an opportunity more than anything to get ON3P's name out there.

BigDaddy · #68 11-02-2009, 10:45 AM

Ummmmm.... I just got a letter from Atomic.

Seriously, it's good PR and I see no reason you can't name a ski with your name. I will consult my legal team and judges...

skibumnh · #69 11-02-2009, 11:00 AM

Gettin' the word out... http://ow.ly/yEgi

Rogge · #70 11-02-2009, 11:06 AM

thanks for the retweet on twitter. Now everyone knows I'm posting in the TGR forums!

ExoticSkis · #71 11-02-2009, 11:09 AM

It's a bummer to get those letters..I've had plenty of discussions with a bunch of small builders about their model names and conflicts they're bound to see if they publish a ski named "x"....some went ahead with it..others changed their names to avoid conflicts and distracting, expensive legal volleys back and forth.

Scott, I think you can make a good argument for having your own name on the ski. I joined the Rock Art Brewing vs. Monster "brew ha ha" and got some nice form letters from Monster (Hansen) stating they issue these letters as a matter of course.... Scott Andrus might want to send such letters himself if I wanted to build a ski called the "Andrus Arc" or some goofy thing like that....

Anyway...Rock Art Brewing got great PR out of it and they settled by protecting each other's interest. The letters are reflex reactions the attorneys get fired for NOT sending. I say play it up if possible....make it a David vs. Goliath story for the websites, blogs, magazines, trade rags...etc....unless Scott A. just wants to move on and just make skis and make this go away by changing a topsheet.

Either way....there's a ton of people to lobby for you. I'd be happy to post any news and views at ExoticSkis.com if you want! (I never liked the way Scott skis felt anyway....)...

skifishbum · #72 11-02-2009, 11:16 AM

I just got off the phone with the guys from the Billygoat tavern in Chicago
They said if you send me a free pair of skis they won't pursue legal matters

Fuck scott Usa incorperated but i think the publicity will end up working in your favor.
do what ya gotta do and keep on keepin on

Liveezy · #73 11-02-2009, 11:22 AM

"Cease and Desist" would be a savage name!!

Teh Poacher · #74 11-02-2009, 11:24 AM

ON3P (Scott), you should see if there is any warehouse space available next door to SCOTT in Ketchum. This guy in Utah has the right idea....
http://www.hilaryshepherd.com/rantsn...een-neighbors/
I'm sure you could easily justify the need for additional ventilation, to meet your manufacturing needs.

stash searcher · #75 11-02-2009, 11:34 AM

totally agree with most.. use the publicity, talk nice with SCOTT USA, come to agreement, or else change the name to great sco(pi) or great scot, or change the o to a snowflake, though my fave is to just cross out the t in all graphics, ads, etc. would be the cheapest to just put a huge red x over the second t.. and luckily, the ski graphic doesn't appear to say the name anywhere on it, so no problems there!
good luck, Scott A., and I know I'm definitely proud to support ON3P! And thanks for the shop update on the website, too!! definitely appreciate all the pics, just awesome to see the progress!! can't wait for the skis!