Forum menu
It would have been underhand for the admin to sell the business lock, stock and barrel to Dan if they’d sold it (or some part of it) to someone else.
So far as I'm aware they didn't sell it lock stock and barrel otherwise he'd have bought the various liabilities, debts and commitments of the previous Stanton and still be trading as the same company.
I'm not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure that he's now trading under a different name because Stanton wasn't sold, the assets of the business were.
The administrator has to realise as much value as they can to satisfy the various creditors to that end if - it's a big if and it's contrary to what's been said above - they can sell or otherwise monetise some of those liabilities that he didn't buy they are expected to do so.
I'm happy to accept that it's not what's happened here based on the previous posts but it certainly wouldn't be underhand to sell the things [debts] the new company didn't buy to someone else.
@brucewee I presume you don't have insta.
Go and look at the so called Stantonbikes_official page. Now comments have been deleted and they've already blocked me for calling them out. The conversation was approximately:
P1: you're not Stanton Bikes
Fakey: who is Stanton bikes? We are Stanton EU/USA Dan Stanton is Stanton UK [plus some other fluff]
Me: just because you try to register the trademark does not make it so, you don't own the IP and are no more Stanton than On One are Sick Bikes.
*blocked*
See the amount of posts with comments that don't show? That's no doubt more folk that have been blocked. They're shady ****s that know exactly what they're doing and what they're claiming to be.
FFS, they could have sold them as is direct and probably not a murmer if it was the one batch. But they've engaged another retailer to sell them and tried to pass themselves off as Stanton. Official at that. I see no doubt to benefit.
I cannot find that page - does it still exist?
The smart way to sort the issue would have been for the German company to agree with Dan a role as an EU distributor. Always look for a way for everyone to win.
But that would’ve needed both sides to be willing to talk and I can understand if they weren’t.
Fair enough, squirrelking.
However, nothing you've described is really inconsistent with a company who is trying to shift a batch of frames they possibly didn't want in the first place, or who have found the company they thought was dead and buried is now very much alive. If they want to get them shifted quickly then going to Bike24 makes perfect sense.
I guess one source who could clear this up is the manufacturer. Have either Dan or STW gotten in touch with them?
My question to them would be, are you going to be making anymore Stanton frames? If the answer is, 'No, we just came to this arrangement to try to reduce the financial hit we took when Stanton didn't complete their order' then everyone can just forget about it and move on with their lives. Once the frames are gone they are gone.
I can only assume they aren't taking Dan's calls anymore and after this article I'd be surprised if they picked up the phone for STW either.
Really feel for Dan in this, after all gone through. I recommend listening to the STW Podcast Interview. Its excellent and really revealing what he went through. Dan has been very thoughtful about how he intends to maintain his supplier relationships.
FFS, they could have sold them as is direct and probably not a murmer if it was the one batch. But they’ve engaged another retailer to sell them and tried to pass themselves off as Stanton. Official at that. I see no doubt to benefit.
This. Had it been just selling the batch then yes maybe they were helping the manufacturer. Or saw a chance to make a few quid. Branding them as Stanton is a bit cheeky, but maybe when they ordered the paint Stanton were still down.
However then describing themselves as Stanton EU Official, launching the social media and applying for trademarks all well after Dan announced he was back in business means they are directly trying to take over the brand. Saying its "just business" isnt good enough. Its a dick move and will mark their cards in a niche sector of the industry.
Maybe they want to lever Euro/US Distributon. Odd, bullying way to go about it though, and if I was Dan I would tell them to FO.
They are not showing on the Bike24 site now so looks like they have dropped them. Maybe Bike 24 have considered the ethics of this.
My question to them would be, are you going to be making anymore Stanton frames? If the answer is, ‘No, we just came to this arrangement to try to reduce the financial hit we took when Stanton didn’t complete their order’ then everyone can just forget about it and move on with their lives. Once the frames are gone they are gone.
Applying for the trademarks suggests the answer is not "No"
I cannot find that page – does it still exist?
Yeah it does on my Insta, I'd rather not put a link to it on a public forum though. Sorry.
I guess it also depends on what deals the administrators did with other people whilst the company was under their control
Maybe there is a Bond villain who has pulled off the crime of the century to 'steal' Stanton bikes.
Personally, I think the most obvious answer is that the easiest way to create a brand is to hit copy and paste. Applying for the trademarks is possibly just a way of muddying the waters long enough to shift the frames. Does anyone actually think the trademarks are going to be granted? Who knows, maybe the US and the EU hate us so much they'll do it just for spite.
Maybe 1bike4life are a group of fundamentally evil human beings. I think it's more likely they are just trying to make a living in the bike industry and for whatever reason thought they could make some quick money on a batch of frames using a brand that was supposed to be dead.
What was the plan for when this batch was gone? Cut frames to bits and reverse engineer the designs? Just get the factory to keep using the same designs?
It seems many want this to be a simple tale of heroes and villains but I think it's most likely more nuanced than that.
I get that this whole episode has been tough for Dan Stanton but it's been tough for everyone lately. However, Stanton has reappeared in a form that is indistinguishable from it's previous form (from the outside) and the old Stanton left some people in the lurch.
I can see why there might not be as much sympathy for them in the wider bike industry as there is on here.
Were they asked as a favour or somehow pressurised into taking on this batch? I don’t know how the power dynamics between smaller brands and manufacturers work so I’ve no idea if either scenario is feasible.
Wouldn't happen ime, not with the frame factories decent quality brands use. You'd not get pressure to buy like that, though the option could well come up. Someone else's frames may be sold on after a bankruptcy but any branding would be down to the buyer.
Factories are canny when it comes to the power of brand - after all if brand (IE the rep that it's based on) wasn't so important they'd make frames and sell direct - so they tend to be pretty careful not to create a mess between customers. The q then maybe what status UK Stanton were at with the factory at the time the frames were sold on.
However, Stanton has reappeared in a form that is indistinguishable from it’s previous form
don’t forget, the administrators were initially called in to consult on turning round the business. A plan was agreed and then the investor/ main creditor changed his mind (possibly within hours) & wanted to initiate the winding up.
It’s not as if Dan has phoenixed the company to clear the debts.
The q then maybe what status UK Stanton were at with the factory at the time the frames were sold on.
To me this is the key question.
What I want to know is, what were the plans once this orphaned batch of frames was sold. Would the factory just continue making new frames to the original drawings and selling them to the new buyer? Would they be allowed to do that since presumably the IP of the designs doesn't belong to them?
Were 1bike4life planning to reverse engineer the designs in order to make a 'new' design that they owned, even though it was a direct copy?
It all seems a bit unlikely but now there are people on this thread with direct industry experience it would be interesting to hear what you reckon their plans were.
Would the factory just continue making new frames to the original drawings and selling them to the new buyer? Would they be allowed to do that since presumably the IP of the designs doesn’t belong to them?
IP on a frame is generally weak to non-existent (outside any tooled-for parts or patented aspects etc) so it's more about factory relationships. Based on how another brand in future is unlikely to have as much faith in a factory who'd run with another brand's designs in this way, I'd expect it's just about clearing a single batch of stock.
Maybe just me but I am struggling to seperate legalities from opinion here?
The first is all we can worry about, the second is irrelevant really, no matter how much we may dislike it.
Utimately of course it is not really any of our business (and I inlcuded journalism here) unless we happen to buy a frame that isn't warrantied when we need it to be.
Based on how another brand in future is unlikely to have as much faith in a factory who’d run with another brand’s designs in this way, I’d expect it’s just about clearing a single batch of stock.
This is what makes me think that once these frames are gone they are gone and there's really nothing to worry about from Stanton's point of view.
Surely Dan knew this, so then why did he ask STW to write this story?
Well because there's a bunch of frames floating around that seem on first appearance to be very associated with the company he's now running.
I very much doubt there is any ip on a bunch of steel tubes joined together with a certain geometry.
I guess the basic question to start from is what should the frame manufacturer should have done with the frames they'd manufactured, but no longer had a customer for? Would there have been a right thing to do?
This is what makes me think that once these frames are gone they are gone and there’s really nothing to worry about from Stanton’s point of view.
German punter: "Dan, my frame has cracked, please can I have a new one?"
Dan Stanton: "Nowt to do with me. Good luck- go back to the retailer"
German punter (not realising that the bike they got from Bike24 is not a genuine Stanton): "They said they can't get anymore. Your name is on the downtube, give me a new frame"
Dan Stanton: "Still nothing to do with me"
German punter on Facebook: "Stanton are terrible at warranty, big bunch of bastards, don't ever buy from them".
One batch is still a problem.
I know it is hindsight, but I'm really struggling to understand why you'd run a company / brand without trademarking the name anywhere.
I make less than one or two frames a year, and still checked I wasn't considering using a name that was trademarked , and could be trademarked if I ever considered making a business of it.
I was really surprised how many bike shops had trademarked their name.
I know it is hindsight, but I’m really struggling to understand why you’d run a company / brand without trademarking the name anywhere.
Being good at a thing - in this case designing and building bike frames - does not mean you are good at running a business doing it. Plenty of businesses fall over for that very reason.
(The opposite is also very much true, I doubt Kylie jenner has a clue how to make lipstick but she ran a very good business of it)
When I said 'just about clearing a batch' I didn't mean 'just' as in it's no problem for Stanton. I'm also surprised that on one hand there was investment in the brand but on the other no TMs in place, but I don't want to be critical of what they were doing.. he got a lot further than I did or would in making his own bikes that's for sure. Just hope this works out ok for Dan.
One batch is still a problem.
Yes, but the problem comes from the fact a company went bust and was then resurrected leaving some orphaned batches of frames running around.
That and the fact the TMs were never registered which seems like a huge oversight from a business point of view.
Had it been me, I would have just said, 'OK, you have permission to sell this batch of frames but no others.' Stanton knows exactly which frames they have afterall, given the fact it was Stanton who put the order in. If some warranty work ends up coming back to Stanton HQ somehow then just deal with it. Think of it as a penalty for not registering the TMs properly.
It doesn't look like 1bike4life would have had any source for more Stanton frames from any kind of reputable factory. I find it highly unlikely they would have been granted the US or EU TMs. In a year 1bike4life would be back to selling road and gravel bikes as if nothing happened.
Instead, Dan Stanton went to STW and got them to write this story. This has led to several people hassling Bike24 and 1bike4life on instagram which I can't help but think was the desired effect.
It's coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer (one that isn't even a competitor) for no other reason than spite and possibly to garner sympathy (which judging by the comments on here is working).
Substitute German Customer and Stanton for Anyone and Planet X and you've got their modus operandi for the last 20 years except that as far as I know, none of the original brands subsequently came back to life. When a Ti frame I bought,which was branded as a pretty well known Dutch manufacturer but sold by PX, cracked after 3 years, I contacted the manufacturer and was sent a new one without quibble despite me having bought it for far less than RRP and them knowing this. I have subsequently had 2 more replacements in the 10 years since my original purchase. Each frame retails for well over €2,000 and yes, one can question why 3 frames have cracked over that time period but I cannot fault the honouring of their lifetime warranty. Surely anyone buying one of these passed off frames from Germany would have an initial warranty claim on them rather than Stanton, how the Germans deal with it risks their reputation not Stantons.
It’s coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer (one that isn’t even a competitor) for no other reason than spite
Well, that and wholesale adoption of someone's creative work and branding without permission which whether legal or not is unethical imho.
I’m really struggling to understand why you’d run a company / brand without trademarking the name
anywhereeverywhere.
Something changed on 1 January 2021. If before that date you could explain exactly what would change as regards UK:EU trademarks from that date, and exactly what UK based companies should do to be ready for it… and that explanation has since been proven to be 100% correct with no legal teams involved… then well done you. Others have been mopping up and getting things in place in the time since then, a good period of which the people at Stanton were not in the position to do the same.
Substitute German Customer and Stanton for Anyone and Planet X and you’ve got their modus operandi for the last 20 years except that as far as I know, none of the original brands subsequently came back to life.
Planet X have simply bought a few bankrupt or low value brand names a la Sports Direct, and that's ok - just helping yourself to a brand in the way that it appears here is different isn't it?
Maybe I'm missing something in how it happened so I'm not going to jump all over Bike24, that's not my intent. I just have little respect for people or companies who palm off the creativity of others as their own or fail to acknowledge prior art and influences etc. It happens too often, but that's another rant.
I must admit that to have the courage to start producing, you probably have to just jump in and avoid thinking too much about the details. I certainly got put off by overthinking the liability and legal side of things.
It’s coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer
(one that isn’t even a competitor)
for no other reason than spite and possibly to garner sympathy
Wouldn't selling identical bikes with identical branding and claiming to be a related company be the absolute pinnacle of being a competitor?!
Well, that and wholesale adoption of someone’s creative work and branding without permission which whether legal or not is unethical imho.
I definitely agree. Kind of.
Remember, Dan Stanton did not own the brand. The administrators did.
Lets face it, the most likely destination for the Stanton brand once it went into administration was either oblivion or onto Tesco shelves for £150 each. Lots of other examples of once good brands reduced to BSO status because the 'brand' was sold without respect for what it once was.
Possibly 1bike4life saw an opportunity to continue the brand in a respectable way without having to pay for it. I assume they figured once the administrators got round to selling off the Stanton (UK) brand to ToysRUs they would be established as Stanton (EU) and nobody would be bothered enough to challenge them.
I'm sure even Dan Stanton would have rather seen the brand remain intact and as it was, even if he didn't own it anymore.
At least, that's how I would have justified it in my head if I'd been running 1bike4life.
Whilst I don't think you could describe the intentions as 'good', I think 'not evil' isn't too much of a stretch.
@mick_r Swarf had similar issues as did Banshee. Not every brand has either the money or experience to register trademarks as they please, no doubt after this many people will learn until it fades from memory and happens all over again.
Remember, Dan Stanton did not own the brand. The administrators did.
Dan had got the branding back (or at least the UK TM) a while ago as far as I knew. Don't know how the timing of that lined up with the bike24 thing though.
But either way, it was just a general point and I'm not intending on getting into the business or legality points, not my place or area of knowledge.
Dan had got the branding back (or at least the UK TM) a while ago as far as I knew. Don’t know how the timing of that lined up with the bike24 thing though.
Yesh, but I guess the plan to steal the brand from the administrators was hatched well before Stanton's resurrection.
I guess 1bike4life were faced with the prospect of removing all the Stanton branding from their frames and then trying to shift a bunch of unbranded frames without taking a severe financial hit or just plowing ahead with their Stanton EU plan in order to shift this batch of frames.
I very much doubt that once they found out Stanton was back they had any plans for Stanton EU beyond getting rid of the frames as quickly as possible.
- plan to steal the brand from the administrators was hatched well before Stanton’s resurrection.
considering the administrators were still operating Stanton as a business selling frames & bikes (clues in the term administration vs a receivership) and pre dec 22 marketed the firm to potential buyers it was in no way a defunct operation.
The sale to new Stanton in mid Feb 23 (clearly stating IP was part of the deal) was after “lengthy negotiations “ . Probably around the time the frames were due to be paid in full so the administrators weren’t going to get a batch of frames that may jeopardise the sale. That was their decision not Dans.
Blatant rip off, no matter how much you try to try & justify it Bruce (or is it Andreas?)
Not a Stanton owner, still happy with my Dialled Alpine- if that ever does get replaced a Slackline would be nice but I’m more likely to get a Bird Zero.
It’s not as if Dan has phoenixed the company to clear the debts.
I presume the manufacturer of the frames that it sold to the German company might have a different view as to if all debts were settled.
Being good at a thing – in this case designing and building bike frames – does not mean you are good at running a business doing it.
Very true but if your going to do it as a business you owe it to yourself to learn and get the right advice
Well, clearly I was the only one who was very surprised to see Stanton reappear basically as it was before.
I just think that the industry in general is in a bad way right now (unless I've gotten that one wrong as well) and perhaps small manufacturers are making decisions that the wouldn't otherwise make. And then doubling down when it turns out they made a mistake.
1bike4life clearly cocked up massively and it wouldn't surprise me if they have put themselves in a hole they don't know how to get themselves out of.
What I don't like is that this piece feels like a call for forumites to apply pressure in order to stop the sale of these frames. Which they did and it worked. Even if they made a mistake this is still a company with employees who no doubt have families.
I don't know how many frames we're talking about. I also don't know what percentage of Stanton's current sales are going to Europe (Bike24 weren't sending their frames to the UK when I checked). It could be it was necessary for Stanton's survival in which case you've got to do what you've got to do.
It just leaves a nasty taste.
It just leaves a nasty taste
What leaves a nasty taste is one company stealing the ip, branding and goodwill of another and then holding themselves out to be that company in order to profit.
They've stolen someone's brand *and* personal identity to shift some bike frames.
It doesn't matter that the frames were destined for Stanton UK, if the manufacturer doesn't get paid for their work they can ,of course , sell their product on. But their product is metal tubes welded together, not Stanton branded bicycle frame.
People really do need to listen to the podcast. Dan was pretty clear that he has worked with his suppliers to make sure that they are not out of pocket. He also stated he was forced into this situation by his co-investor. There was no card shuffling phoenix trick.
As said by FT-ATB the buyout by Dan from Administration was completed Mid-Feb 23. The 1bike4life Stanton social media started end May 23. My bet is the dev prep was started a couple of months before at the earliest, and they knew Stanton was back up and running when they took this decision. I am still calling it cynical opportunism based on the 23 frames (according to an earlier post) they picked up somewhere, that they thought they could build a business out of.
I doubt it was social media pressure that made Bike24 drop them. Bike24 probably realised that the what they were selling wasn't legit and would have no warranty recourse, no sustainability and so a bad business decision to continue.
Also i dont see this as similar to Planet X buying dead brand names at all. At no time was Stanton a dead brand, its remained operational throughout. When Planet X bought the Titus brand and remaining stock, Titus, once a great bike maker, had been dead for a couple of years, due to going bust over the motolite carbon stay issue and the stock had sat in a warehouse for a couple of years untouched. I think an US employee of Planet X came across it and they bought it all along with the brand name.
People really do need to listen to the podcast.
People need to listen to the podcast and pay particular attention to the part where Dan is talking about the potential buyers for the Stanton brand.
Spoiler: none of them were interested in mountain biking.
An owner buying his own company back from the administrators is pretty unprecedented in the mountain biking industry, at least as far as I can remember. Happy to be proved wrong.
Like I said, the most likely destination for Stanton as a brand after going into administration was as BSO shelf filler so that a foreign oligarch could have access to the UK via their 'mountain biking' company. If I'm seriously the only one who thought this then I need an education in the history of small brands who have gone into administration because I am definitely missing something.
Now two things could have happened with 1bike4life. The first is that they saw a quick buck and went for it.
The second is that they saw what the rest of us saw which was that Stanton was destined to be sold in Argos. Thanks to fortuitous timing and Brexit they realised they could 'own' Stanton EU while whatever oligarch bought Stanton would own Stanton UK.
I have no idea which is the case. Given human nature it's most likely the first.
However, IF an oligarch ended up buying Stanton purely to own a UK based company while Stanton EU was over in Germany selling Sherpas, Switchbacks, and Slacklines I'm sure we'd all be congratulating them on getting one over on the man. Legal and moral grey areas or not.
Yep, wisdom of hindsight and all, I think thats a fair assessment.
The only thing that doesnt quite add up for me are the timings for the 1bike4life activity, which suggests to me they realised their hand was busted but decided to press on.
Its an interesting question when do you pull the plug on commercial exploration. Sometimes its a bit of a whirlpool and once caught difficult to see the right time to pull back. I once developed an instore customer thing based on a Microsoft gadget or some such. 12 weeks of bonkers hard work by a big team, only to be told to cancel it the night before deployment because Rupert, the Marketing Director, had told the FT in an interview that the brand identified with Apple based on "shared vision" and couldn't roll back on that comment.
Like I said, the most likely destination for Stanton as a brand after going into administration was as BSO shelf filler so that a foreign oligarch could have access to the UK via their ‘mountain biking’ company. If I’m seriously the only one who thought this then I need an education in the history of small brands who have gone into administration because I am definitely missing something
The most likely destination for Stanton as a brand was as a small company that existed in the history of the UK MTB market. They are not a big enough brand that would end up as a BSO somewhere as noone outside of the core MTB 'Singletrackworld' base would have ever heard of them.
They are not a big enough brand that would end up as a BSO somewhere as noone outside of the core MTB ‘Singletrackworld’ base would have ever heard of them.
Like I said, listen to the podcast and Dan's description of the potential buyers and why they were interested in buying Stanton.
It is interesting that some brands that would be considered 'proper' mountain bikes still exist as BSO brands. Muddy Fox is one that springs to mind. Coyote is another. I'm sure there are more.
I always assumed that the brand was bought with a view to continuing it but after a while it was just found that BSOs were more profitable than proper bikes but I couldn't understand why the name was important since the customer would certainly never have heard of the brand anyway.
However, after listening to the podcast, it sounds like some of these brands were bought in order for certain individuals to own an already established business in a particular country. I guess if you buy a bike brand for reasons that aren't related to an interest in selling bikes then BSOs make perfect sense.
Could be an interesting story to investigate bike brands you thought were dead and gone are actually still around selling BSOs and who it was who bought them?
For ease, has anyone got a link to the podcast please? Sounds like an interesting listen 👍
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/podcast-dan-stanton-what-happened-what-next/
So there's an interview with Andreas Kirschner up on Youtube:
I don't know when they filmed it but from context it was clearly after Eurobike, so fairly fresh.
I haven't watched the whole thing, just the part labelled 'How to buy a bike brand?'. To summarize and translate: He basically states that he bought a container of 400 frames* from the Asian manufacturer that happens to be the same who builds his steel and titanium frames (Falkenjagd and Rennstahl). Supposedly he has further business with said manufacturer (something about tooling) and wanted to prevent the whole operation from suffering from financial problems that might have been the result of hundreds of unpaid frames. Here's where it get's sketchy: He also states that he got the rights to use the branding / trademark rights by purchasing those frames. As if that was just normal. No flinching there. Dan doesn't get mentioned.
*He said that there's more left, probably another 400 frames (one container).
Here’s where it get’s sketchy: He also states that he got the rights to use the branding / trademark rights by purchasing those frames. As if that was just normal.
Lolwut?