Methinks actual reputational damage greater than imagined commercial gain. NTS may learn a valuable lesson – engage brain before engaging solicitor.

aracer – I don’t think so. NOr can you register a placename either.

Just had NTS bloke and hilltreck owner on R4. NTS guy came across as a lot “corporate line”. Unable to concede anything.

Is this not an exact repeat of the Specialized/Roubaix farce?

In that NTS are legally obliged to protect a trademark otherwise they lose it? I forget the legalities, but if I recall correctly you can’t register a trademark and then just stand by and let others use it. Seems like the simple solution would be for the NTS to allow Hilltreks to use the trademark for free under license, or something.

If this is genuinely a case of the NTS wanting to muscle into the waterproof jacket market then that is pretty poor. I wasn’t a member but probably would have become one sooner or later, not at this rate though!

NTS guy came across as a lot “corporate line”. Unable to concede anything.

It’s the job tho. Anything they say on national radio could be used as a stick to beat them with now or in the future in other legal issues.

On the plus side, it’s a bit of free publicity for Hilltrek. I imagine they’ll sell a few extra jackets this month.

Aye I get that. But he would have sounded a lot better if he had said we’ll contact hilltrek and talk this through but he kept saying they can phone us anytime to talk. It’s a little thing but…

It would seem you cannot trademark a place name over which you do not have full control:

Canary Wharf

onehundredthidiot – absolutely agree, sounds like they’re not willing to back down entirely, even in the face of some terrible publicity! Makes you wonder what deals they’ve already committed to…

It would seem you cannot trademark a place name over which you do not have full control:

Doesn’t seem to have stopped them in this case.

On the plus side, it’s a bit of free publicity for Hilltrek. I imagine they’ll sell a few extra jackets this month.

I’m not so sure, have you seen their prices?

13thfloormonk – Member

onehundredthidiot – absolutely agree, sounds like they’re not willing to back down entirely, even in the face of some terrible publicity! Makes you wonder what deals they’ve already committed to…

According to what I have seen on the net and not corroborated they have a deal to make outdoor clothing with regatta

edit – indeed I have now found regatta selling clothing with the nts logo

But he would have sounded a lot better if he had said we’ll contact hilltrek and talk this through but he kept saying they can phone us anytime to talk. It’s a little thing but…

especially as NTS have already conceded they’ve been heavy handed so far

The phrase ‘oops’ springs to mind now…
Looks like someone beat them to it in 1996.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002060762

Doesn’t seem to have stopped them in this case

I see your point Cougar, let me try again:

It would seen you cannot legally enforce a trademark relating to a geographical area over which you do not have full control.

Are NTS now acting like those patent trolls in the States, I’m thinking of that episode of Silicon Valley – last series – where it’s all about the cost of a legal challenge vs. just paying them off.

NTS lost me years ago when they tried barring bicycles from Mar Lodge estate. A very imperfect organisation.

Aye, my local NTS site has no cycling on lots of its paths, wouldn’t give them another penny.

Nobeer – no cycling signs in scotland have no validity unless they are backed by a local bylaw. Access rights trumps them

I remember the fuss about Mar Lodge and that end of the Lairig Ghru. There was a rumour that Someone had donated a chunk of money and tried to impose that condition.

It was unfortunate for the NTS that this happened over a weekend. But it it took them a long time to make any kind of statement, and then it failed to say that they’d contacted Hilltrek.

The next AGM should be interesting.

Nobeer – no cycling signs in scotland have no validity unless they are backed by a local bylaw. Access rights trumps them

I don’t think that’s quite true. Do access rights apply to all properties and gardens etc that the NTS own/manage? I think they would be within their rights to prohibit cycles from some of their paths.

Edit: It’s not true. From the Scottish Outdoor Access Code

The main places where access rights do not apply are:
• houses and gardens, and non-residential buildings and associated land;
• land in which crops are growing;
• land next to a school and used by the school;
• sports or playing fields when these are in use and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
• land developed and in use for recreation and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use;
• golf courses (but you can cross a golf course provided you don’t interfere with any games of golf);
• places like airfields, railways, telecommunication sites, military bases and installations, working quarries and construction sites; and
• visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.

I listened to the NTS gut and the guy from Hilltrek, NTS did themselves no favours with his pathetic attempt to sound like he was in the right while trying not to be critical of Hilltrek. What a set of gits these organisations are becoming, perhaps it’s time they reaquainted themselves with what their founders were trying to do.

Km – I thought he was meaning in general like when mar lodge tried it. Also if there is walking allowed its very hard to see how cyclists could be excluded. If access rights apply to people on foot they do so as well to cyclists. For sure you can’t cycle in a private garden but for example most of balmoral estate you can just not the bit around the castle where pedestrians are excluded as well

I’ve had a reply from NTS, of which I think this is worth sharing*…

For what it’s worth, and as Xxxxx mentioned in his earlier reply to you, there is absolutely no question that the standard legal document with standard wording, that was sent to Hilltrek by our representatives was disproportionate and far too harsh in tone. Sending out this letter was wrong and we very much regret that.

Our Director of Customer & Cause, Mark Bishop was in touch with Hilltrek by phone on Monday and the exchange was both constructive and reasonable. This will be followed up with a face to face meeting, which we are sure will result in a mutually agreeable solution that will involve no detriment to either party.

We have also taken steps to ensure that any future communication on the subject of trademarked names receives proper consideration of context and will be proportionate as a result. Please be assured that the issue and the circumstances that led to it are being scrutinised at the very highest levels of the Trust’s management, including our Board of Trustees.

*I trust they won’t mind it being shared. I replied with a link to Spesh’s Roubaix disaster, with the suggestion that he share it with their lawyers, just because.

Edit: It’s not true. From the Scottish Outdoor Access Code

KM79, just out of interest, which of those criteria are you suggesting applies to Mar Lodge? Or are you referring to the lodge specifically (I’ll confess to only being hazily aware of the boundaries in that area).

The only one which would apply to e.g. the area around Bob Scott’s might be

• land developed and in use for recreation and where the exercise of access rights would interfere with such use

Assuming that land was used for deer hunting, and even then, that actually sets quite a worrying precedent if people can be restricted from access to deer hunting estates (any more than the current sticking-to-paths arrangement anyway.

None of the above criteria apply to Glencoe as far as I’m aware, doesn’t stop them trying to prohibit camping in the glen however (not a bad idea really, wouldn’t want the bottom of the glen turning into another Loch Lomondside).

KM79, just out of interest, which of those criteria are you suggesting applies to Mar Lodge? Or are you referring to the lodge specifically (I’ll confess to only being hazily aware of the boundaries in that area).

None. Not suggesting anything about Mar lodge. Just that access rights do not cover pay to enter tourist attractions therefore some properties and grounds that the NTS manage would be perfectly within their rights to put up no cycling signs and that in these cases access rights do not trump them.

I’d be interested to know which location nobeer was referring to.

(edit) Wasn’t the Mar Lodge fuss before the change in the law about access?

None. Not suggesting anything about Mar lodge. Just that access rights do not cover pay to enter tourist attractions therefore some properties and grounds that the NTS manage would be perfectly within their rights to put up no cycling signs and that in these cases access rights do not trump them.

Gotcha