Stanton Bicycles Facing German Copycat

I know this is not the case. Nothing underhand went on with the administrator. This was as much a surprise to them as anyone. This really is as breathtakingly bad behaviour as it looks by this Andreas Kirschner. It’ll be interesting to see if he comes out in public and how he tries to spin it – it’s telling that he hasn’t. I think he took a gamble (on Stanton going bust and disappearing) and his bluff has been called.

I know this is not the case. Nothing underhand went on with the administrator.

You know what’s not the case?

And who said there was anything underhand with the administrator?

The administrator was well within their right not to settle up for the frames.  Doesn’t change the fact it left the manufacturer with a bunch of frames and limited options to shift them.

For transparency I’ve been working with Dan and Stanton on and off on a consulting basis for a few years. So that’s why I keep chipping in when I see stuff that’s wide of the mark! Honestly this situation defies logical explanation- other than it’s a gamble that’s backfired. If this is so legit and ‘it’s just business guv’ then why is this Andreas Kirschner refusing to engage with Dan? Why would you reproduce someone’s life story and sell their products without ever once contacting them? It’s wrong and knowingly wrong.

Like I say, I’m all a bit close to it and I know what really happened and I can assure you there aren’t any murky grey areas to my knowledge. It’s been a very rough market and Dan has and is doing his best.

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. But they didn’t. So it wasn’t.

Like I say, I’m all a bit close to it and I know what really happened and I can assure you there aren’t any murky grey areas to my knowledge

The grey area is that Stanton went bust and left a frame manufacturer with a partially paid for batch of frames and limited options to shift them.

From what I can see, 1bike4life uses the same manufacturer as Stanton (or rather, the manufacturer Stanton used to use) but I could be wrong on this point.  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.

1bike4life make road and gravel bikes and therefore no option to do a Hello Dave.  They could ‘create’ a brand but is that really feasible for a single batch?

If they are just trying to shift a batch of frames and have been caught in a sticky legal situation I can see why they would want to avoid contact and just try to shift the frames as fast as possible.  If that’s the case, once they’re gone then who cares?

Has Dan spoken to the original frame manufacturer about this?  What are they saying?

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 **** 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.

Great news that they’re off Bike24 now. I just checked and you’re right. They were still on there a few days ago so hopefully it’s a sign of something, possibly caused by Hannah digging into it.

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 anywhere everywhere.

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.

1. 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.