Specialized threaten to sue over Roubaix name!

I bet the shop is doing well though.

When the story first broke, they had about 100 followers on Twitter. They’re now at just over 3000!

Yesterday somebody found that roubaix.ca was a free web name, registered it and then redirected it to caferoubaix.ca 😀

Indeed, profiting quite nicely from his own naiveity/stupidity, whodathunk it?

Searching for roubaix bicycle on google.com now returns http://www.caferoubaix.ca on the first page.

I just hope for Mr. Richter’s sake that with all the extra sympathy / support / stickin it to “the man”, sales it appears he’s made last few days, for tees and jerseys etc., that his business doesn’t fail through over trading ! Unlikely, I know with PayPal type sales and money up front etc. Here’s to him anyway, whatever the outcome.

Northwind – Member
So do you boycott Trek (or Pivot, pick either)? Shimano? Cane Creek? Or moving away from trademarks, how about Chris King?

While we’re here, what have those companies done?

To quote a tweet : Peter In Roubaix @PeterInDevon
The funniest part of the #roubaix bullying scandal is that @iamspecialized lost the password to their twitter account at the same time!

Ah – I just keep checking the page for an update. I suppose I’m increasing their page view count.

When the story first broke, they had about 100 followers on Twitter. They’re now at just over 3000!

Wow, their profits must be through the roof with that….! 😉

I’d agree that there are bigger, much more important things to get wound up about in the world, but that doesn’t mean you can’t disapprove and decide to comment on or go as far as boycotting SBC, Cyclists are bound to care about “cycling issues” and the behaviour of cycling businesses, and probably get more animated over those issues than others (perhaps going beyond what is reasonable in some cases), I think it is important that as companies like SBC get bigger they remember that their customers perception of the brand, and what it stands for is extremely important for their continued success.

A “Brand” is more than just the Names, Logos and colour schemes, consumers are attracted to brands they feel they can identify with, that reflect their beliefs and aspirations, when it comes to “Brand management” enforcing an, apparently flawed, trademark registration is actually far less important than your potential customers thinking you are a bunch of lawyered up Dicks…

TBH, rather cynically, I don’t think this little episode will really affect SBC all that much, they’ll buy themselves a few more glowing reviews in MBR etc and the worst they’ll feel will be a minor 2014 Q1 sales blip…

I don’t think SBC are some cartoonish, Evil, Mega-corp, but I think in the process of growing from a Garage outfit to a multinational corporation over the last 30 odd years they’ve lost their way a little, become a little bit mono-cultural and started to think more about how to dominate cycling rather than be part of it, I think they maybe need a bit of a minor “ethical realignment” they might not be chopping down rain forests or rotting baby’s teeth, but they are showing form for bullying smaller businesses over the last couple of years, its behaviour that in the long run will hurt their brand…

Intersting how none of the flamers have a repost to the argument that under Canuck law, Specialized could lose the Roubaix trademark if they don’t take steps to enforce it (puts them in a no-win situation)

the fundamental argument is whether there was an actual infringement of the trademark in the first place, surely? Not whether they were right/wrong to try enforcement?

Several lawyers have said they think it was a fairly shakey claim in the first place. This is why people are upset – Specialized waving a big stick at someone on dubious grounds knowing they’ll never have to contest their claims in court.

the fact they broke their own licence to use the ‘Roubaix’ trademark when registering it is the icing on the cake.

Intersting how none of the flamers have a repost to the argument that under Canuck law, Specialized could lose the Roubaix trademark if they don’t take steps to enforce it (puts them in a no-win situation)

They don’t have to enforce it, they can grant permission instead. But… it turns out they don’t actually own it anyway and have just been granted permission to use it themselves.

Contrast ASI’s pretty reasonable response with that of Specialized (Canada). Anyway I now have a T shirt heading over the Atlantic for Christmas 😀 . Reading Cafe Roubaix FB, he already has the offer of a Trademark lawyer pro bono (talk about getting in there!).

Intersting how none of the flamers have a repost to the argument that under Canuck law, Specialized could lose the Roubaix trademark if they don’t take steps to enforce it

i did think about this a couple of days ago. They could have reached an agreement (assuming specialised and not Fuji hold the rights for Canada) All they had to do was contact the bike shop owner and say we believe that you’re inappropriately using our trademark, whilst we doubt there will be any confusion between our brands under Canadian law we do need to enforce our trademark therefore would you be willing to to license the name for $1.

Compromise all round.
He gets to keep his shop name.
Specialized get to protect their (or more likely Fuji’s) trademark.
And the story either gets no press or it might even deliberately leak out as a good news piece about global mega corp supporting the little guy.

Fair point wwaswas, but what do you mean by this?

the fact they broke their own licence to use the ‘Roubaix’ trademark when registering it is the icing on the cake

And also this…any evidence?

5thElefant – Member
But… it turns out they don’t actually own it anyway and have just been granted permission to use it themselves.

cynic-al – read james-o’s post on the previous page from the actual owners of the trademark.

You mean apart from all the responses to that argument which had already been given before your post:
1) Specialized could have done what ASI have done and agreed that the cafe could use the name.
2) That they don’t have to go after every use of the trademark (in situations which the trademark doesn’t directly cover) in order to protect it http://redkiteprayer.com/2013/12/the-explainer-because-i-ing-hate-bullies/ http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/TrademarkLitigationStudy.pdf
3) That the shop name isn’t actually infringing the trademark at all as it doesn’t cover bike shops and there is no real likelihood of confusion – this isn’t a valid legal case and simply relies upon a small business not having the funds to fight it.
4) Finally that their registration of the trademark isn’t valid according to the owners of the trademark in the US.

…off you go to read the thread, where you’ll find all of those already mentioned. I particularly recommend reading the redkiteprayer article – one by a real lawyer with experience of this sort of stuff – where he debunks the notion that Specialized had to do this. I’ll quote from that article for you:

Specialized is using the old “defend it or lose it” argument, saying that it must assert its “rights” to “their” trademark of Roubaix or risk losing it.

It’s a weak argument and one that I, quite uncomfortably, had to try and make myself many years ago (more on that later). It’s basically an argument that can be summed up as — and forgive me for using another technical legal term here — ”bullshit.”

OK ta, I’d not realised there had been updates in recent hours.

aracer – Member
4) Finally that their registration of the trademark isn’t valid according to the owners of the trademark in the US.

Odd…this relates to a Canadian dispute? –

BTW what do you mean by this?

one by a real lawyer with experience of this sort of stuff

Except there is a link between the US and Canadian legal systems, and the article suggests there were conditions relating to the licensing of the trademark in the US.

BTW what do you mean by this?
one by a real lawyer with experience of this sort of stuff

Er, that the article was written by a real lawyer with experience of trademark disputes. Why what else did you think I meant?

Again, cynic-al – all the answers have been provided. Why not just read?

Christ, like neither of you have missed updates on a thread in the preceding hours before you posted?

🙄

crossed Trek off my list for new bike purchases following Dave Weagle’s ABP allegations (and personal experience of dealing with the company).

I’ll tread very carefully here having had some direct experience of that. I wouldn’t regard Trek as doing much wrong with axle pivots and IP relating to it. Or no more than anyone else.

I’m aware of the danger of judging before a verdict has been reached. DW’s claim looked quite damning though.

Fortunately Trek have also ruled themselves out for me as a contender for new bikes by shamelessly weaseling out of warrantying their product when required.

Still bought a secondhand Stache though. Does that make me a hypocrite?

good synopsis of the current state of play with Specialized here;

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/specialized-roubaix-trademark-legal-threat-may-backfire-as-fuji-weighs-in-39260/%5B/url%5D

Not 23 hours, no – which is how long ago I posted this (I’m fairly sure some of the other responses were posted even earlier):
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/specialized-threaten-to-sue-over-roubaix-name/page/4#post-5583188

Really not trying to have a go, but the responses you claimed nobody had given had all been done yesterday.

they gain from a bit of publicity (their facebook likes have gone up since this started) and it’s business as usual

Have you seen their FB page lately?

Have you seen their FB page lately?

Ouch, that doesn’t look good for them does it

There really are a lot of sad pricks on the internet.

“We win by working in a highly collaborative and transparent, non-corporate and non-political environment with a mission to:

• Create a culture that attracts, develops and retains the best people on the planet
• Design and build the best bikes and equipment in the world
• Foster social and environmental responsibility in the world in which we live“

Here’s a hint Specialized: don’t just have a mission statement, try being your mission statement.

Chapaking, I don’t know about any verdicts or ongoing stuff there as I’ve not followed it for a few years. Safe to say there’s prior use of axle pivots before either Trek or DW used it though.
But that’s off topic, just why I have a passing interest in the Spesh news, mainly the way the US and European Patent criteria seem to be different.

The ones posting on internet forums, or are you just including FB? 😉

There’s prior use of most patented bike suspension stuff – hence why most of it is only patented in the US. Of course Specialized also have history in this area with their Horst Link patent, which would likely fail if anybody ever decided to spend enough money to contest it (I understand either Scott or Giant considered it, but decided it wasn’t worth spending all the money even though they were confident of winning).

There’s prior use of most patented bike suspension stuff – hence why most of it is only patented in the US.

My point exactly, it’s why the legal wranglings over how a combination of old or evolved ideas (or names) applied slightly differently seem a bit daft to me, aside from the obviously profitable aspect of protecting your use of an idea, if you can. Fair enough if you really have moral and designer’s claim over a non-obvious idea, but that’s not always the case. imo brand value comes from what you do and when, how etc, less about how well you can afford to use lawyers. Lawyers cost money that’s better put into R+D or sponsorship.

There really are a lot of sad pricks on the internet.

Californian Big Bike Co legals hit on Canadian LBS over alleged TM abuse.
LBS can’t afford to fight, as BBC has lots of lawyers.
But BBC’s TM Cert shows it doesn’t cover wheels and cafe, the heart of the problem.
Original TM owners turn up, they say BBC only rented TM, and not in Canada.
BBC are saying nowt. Lots of ordinary bike riders turn up to put pressure on BBC’s FB page because they don’t approve.

Just who are the sad pricks here? Apart from the lawyers, of course.

It doesn’t help that they chose to TM Roubaix, which is deeply embedded in cycling culture. I read about it when I was a teenager, yes that long ago.

Shame no one can put up a web site up to donate a small sum, to take it to court
has this is typical corporate bullying

It looks like we won
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2013/12/09/cochrane-bike-shop-owner-may-have-won-his-case-against-specialized-over-use-of-word-roubaix/

…don’t tell me that Mike was going to call and sort out the mess without the help of a social media campaign. Unlike some more generous souls posting on their FB page I reckon past history shows what would have happened had the shitstorm not hit.

War vet war vet war vet war vet war vet war vet war vet war vet. It’s important to mention this part of the narrative as much as possible.