Backcountry.com not playing nice

sounds like they pulled the lawsuit.  Seems to me that owning a common word is kind of bullshit. 

M Sprague wrote:

I don't think ownership of those brands is necessarily up to date. You have to research each one a little bit and see if they have been sold to make sure you aren't boycotting innocent parties. I mentioned above that at least one or two looked like they had been sold.

Sold? Do they own 100% stake in those brands?

Backcountry Speaks Out: Letter From CEO

A Letter to Our Community

Dear Backcountry Community,
We have heard your feedback and concerns, and understand we fumbled in how we pursued trademark claims recently. We made a mistake.
In an attempt to protect the brand we have been building for nearly 25 years, we took certain actions that we now recognize were not consistent with our values, and we truly apologize.
It’s important to note that we tried to resolve these trademark situations amicably and respectfully, and we only took legal action as a last resort. That said, we know we mishandled this, and we are withdrawing the Marquette Backcountry action. We will also reexamine our broader approach to trademarks to ensure we are treating others in a way that is consistent with the culture and values envisioned by our founders and embraced by our community.
We only want what’s best for the whole community and we want every person and business in it to thrive. Backcountry has never been interested in owning the word “backcountry” or completely preventing anyone else from using it. But we clearly misjudged the impact of our actions.
We understand that this step we’ve taken may not be enough for some of you. The hope is that we can ultimately win back your trust, even if it takes time. We are grateful to be a part of your lives, providing you with great gear for your outdoor adventures, and all we want is to go back to doing what we do best. We intend to learn from this and become a better company.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Nielsen, CEO Backcountry

Chris Owen wrote: Backcountry Speaks Out: Letter From CEO

A Letter to Our Community

Dear Backcountry Community,
We have heard your feedback and concerns, and understand we fumbled in how we pursued trademark claims recently. We made a mistake.
In an attempt to protect the brand we have been building for nearly 25 years, we took certain actions that we now recognize were not consistent with our values, and we truly apologize.
It’s important to note that we tried to resolve these trademark situations amicably and respectfully, and we only took legal action as a last resort. That said, we know we mishandled this, and we are withdrawing the Marquette Backcountry action. We will also reexamine our broader approach to trademarks to ensure we are treating others in a way that is consistent with the culture and values envisioned by our founders and embraced by our community.
We only want what’s best for the whole community and we want every person and business in it to thrive. Backcountry has never been interested in owning the word “backcountry” or completely preventing anyone else from using it. But we clearly misjudged the impact of our actions.
We understand that this step we’ve taken may not be enough for some of you. The hope is that we can ultimately win back your trust, even if it takes time. We are grateful to be a part of your lives, providing you with great gear for your outdoor adventures, and all we want is to go back to doing what we do best. We intend to learn from this and become a better company.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Nielsen, CEO Backcountry

Huh! Sure took the attorneys a while to write that back peddling "apology" for him to sign!

I’d consider the case closed when they repay every penny shelled out by the little guys who had to pay a lawyer or change their name to avoid a legal fight. Also they won’t be getting any purchases from me, not that I was tempted to buy from them very often to begin with, with a great devils lake local shop close by. 

As corporate apologies go, Nielson’s is fair to strong.

Ultimately, his actions probably cost many small businesses money and days and night of worry.  

The idea of backcountry, a free, remote and open place, is not his or his company’s.  The value is our love for that idea.  Nielson trespassed on that.  What actions will he take now?  How will Nielson show us he respect what we love about the backcountry?

I would like to see some stewardship.  Our local gear shops have been stewards with far less reach or means than backcountry.com.   If Nielson wants that business, he better show backcountry.com will do more than turn a buck.

I never spent a $ online that I could have spent at Rock And Snow.  This episode just makes me more determined to support local shops as long as they can persist. 

Ma Ja wrote: Anyone saying they're never using Backcountry again, I hope you ditch Facebook, Amazon, and Apple. If you dont, then stfu with your chest pounding, you're a hypocrite.

In this f'd up world you take you stand when and where you can. Whether it's BC, or FB... you can't expect to be the role model in a crap world so pick and choose what moves your spirit the most. Don't label me a hypocrite for that. 

Michael S wrote:

In this f'd up world you take you stand when and where you can. Whether it's BC, or FB... you can't expect to be the role model in a crap world so pick and choose what moves your spirit the most. Don't label me a hypocrite for that. 

You labeled yourself that. The hypocrisy on this thread is hard to read. All you Backcountry boycotters, with your Prime memberships, should just stop posting about your faux righteous boycott. Bezos has done more damage to individuals, the environment, and the local, national, and global economy, that it is laughable that someone could post about BC, and then continue buying from Amazon. You dont have to be a role model to stop supporting Amazon, or Walmart, or Facebook, Apple, or any other horrible corporation, you just dont, and then stfu about it. Simple. Reading the two articles about BC makes me want to stop using them as well, but if you're not reflecting on your other finacial contributions, then you're a hypocrite. Luckily I gave up on Amazon, facebook, Walmart, and generally, the meat industry, etc, many years ago when I learned of the damages they have caused. It's only gotten worse. Amazon is now a(or the) leading CIA contractor, Walmart continues destroying small towns/businesses everywhere it goes, and Facebook has been exploiting everyone that uses it since day one. Not to mention Bezos and Zuckerberg's character. Name more companies that needs attention and I'll read about them and make up my own mind.

......

Can i still go to pornhub atleast?

Ma Ja wrote:

You labeled yourself that. The hypocrisy on this thread is hard to read. All you Backcountry boycotters, with your Prime memberships, should just stop posting about your faux righteous boycott. Bezos has done more damage to individuals, the environment, and the local, national, and global economy, that it is laughable that someone could post about BC, and then continue buying from Amazon. You dont have to be a role model to stop supporting Amazon, or Walmart, or Facebook, Apple, or any other horrible corporation, you just dont, and then stfu about it. Simple. Reading the two articles about BC makes me want to stop using them as well, but if you're not reflecting on your other finacial contributions, then you're a hypocrite. Luckily I gave up on Amazon, facebook, Walmart, and generally, the meat industry, etc, many years ago when I learned of the damages they have caused. It's only gotten worse. Amazon is now a(or the) leading CIA contractor, Walmart continues destroying small towns/businesses everywhere it goes, and Facebook has been exploiting everyone that uses it since day one. Not to mention Bezos and Zuckerberg's character. Name more companies that needs attention and I'll read about them and make up my own mind.

While I'm not a Walmart fan, in many of the smaller towns where they are killing small business, Walmart has been "invited"  into the  town by the local government with tax concessions, etc.  It would be informative if an institution like Harvard Business School did case studies to assess overall impact.  Walmart "sells" their lower prices and jobs, and local governments buy that argument without understanding the negative impacts.  So, who is to blame?  Walmart or naïve local governments? Or both?  Hard to fight Walmart, but local governments no so much. I like to buy local and will pay a premium if product is available, but in small towns like mine (3000 residents, Walmart 120 miles away,  climbing gear store the same distance) that is not always the case.  On the internet smaller businesses are present.  For example, instead of buying from Backcountry.com, consider buying from Mountain Tools or directly from the manufacturer.

Dave K wrote:

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
 

I'm not attempting to discredit anyone. Reading comprehension is low on this website, so let me sum up my point. Backcountry doesnt deserve your money, and neither does Amazon, or Apple, or Walmart, etc. *IF* you buy your kid's breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonalds and Walmart, and then get a knock on the door every evening when your Amazon Prime package has arrived, and then Facetime your friends about it, then dont come on here pounding your chest telling us that boycotting Backcountry is going to set the world straight. Take your Prime dildo that was delivered in 2 days, and go have fun with it.

Get it?

Ma Ja is the wokest of woke.

Dave K wrote:

What Backcountry is doing does not benefit anybody. It reduces consumer choice without benefiting customers. Backcountry doesn't have to lower prices or offer better service to win customers, they are just trying to force customers to have fewer choices.

While I don't agree with the trademark antics of Backcountry, how is a name change "trying to force customers to have fewer choices"?

The theoretical argument of the IP law that Backcountry is using it that these lawsuits benefit consumers by reducing confusion. We are being saved because they eliminate the risk of choosing the wrong vendor. Shutting down "Backcountry Babes" protects us from mistakenly thinking that we are doing business with the "real" Backcountry.com.  Of course customers aren't that clueless and the confusion is not real in most of these cases. Backcountry is using the legal system to fix a problem that doesn't exist, and the outcome benefits nobody but them.

You're aware that Backcountry dropped the action against Backcountry Babes?

Tim Stich wrote: Ma Ja is the wokest of woke

It's funny how sensitive you all are about your Prime dildos. I wouldnt want 4 days shipping on mine either. When you need it, you need it.

Dave K wrote:

If we can't fix every problem, we shouldn't even talk about fixing any problem. 

Right.

I wish reading was easier. My comments are directed at those posting "Well, Backcountry isn't getting another penny of my money!  ", right after they just renewed their subscription to the CIA's favorite marketplace.

Anyone looking to enhance their understanding of how greed and corruption hurts everyone,  and who is hit the hardest, I'd suggest reading Chris Hedges' recent books. For those that cant understand anything I've written, he's got plenty of YouTube videos as well. Ralph Nader is the man too. His podcast is great.

Chris Owen wrote: Backcountry Speaks Out: Letter From CEO

A Letter to Our Community

Dear Backcountry Community,
We have heard your feedback and concerns, and understand we fumbled in how we pursued trademark claims recently. We made a mistake.
In an attempt to protect the brand we have been building for nearly 25 years, we took certain actions that we now recognize were not consistent with our values, and we truly apologize.
It’s important to note that we tried to resolve these trademark situations amicably and respectfully, and we only took legal action as a last resort. That said, we know we mishandled this, and we are withdrawing the Marquette Backcountry action. We will also reexamine our broader approach to trademarks to ensure we are treating others in a way that is consistent with the culture and values envisioned by our founders and embraced by our community.
We only want what’s best for the whole community and we want every person and business in it to thrive. Backcountry has never been interested in owning the word “backcountry” or completely preventing anyone else from using it. But we clearly misjudged the impact of our actions.
We understand that this step we’ve taken may not be enough for some of you. The hope is that we can ultimately win back your trust, even if it takes time. We are grateful to be a part of your lives, providing you with great gear for your outdoor adventures, and all we want is to go back to doing what we do best. We intend to learn from this and become a better company.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Nielsen, CEO Backcountry

Where did they post this? As of yesterday, their Facebook page is still full of all the usual deals being offered.....with huge numbers of negative comments on all of the recent ones.

Best, Helen

Ma Ja wrote:

I wish reading was easier. 

i wish you would post something value-added instead of ranting about how all of us are underneath your understanding of the world.

Marc801 C wrote: You're aware that Backcountry dropped the action against Backcountry Babes?

Not exactly. If you dig through USPTO filings it's apparent that Backcountry.com got what they wanted. In 2018 Backcountry Babes applied for a trademark covering outdoor education, guiding services and "Backcountry Babes"-branded t-shirts, jackets, hoodies, etc. Backcountry.com objected because they wanted trademark protection for "Backcountry"-branded clothing and outdoor goods. To date the USPTO has denied this, citing potential confusion with other trademarks that use the term "Backcountry". So Backcountry.com pressured Backcountry Babes into dropping all references to branded clothing in their trademark application. Backcountry Babes' trademark is now limited to outdoor education and guiding services, and it includes a disclaimer that they're not claiming an exclusive right to use the term "Backcountry" for other purposes.

Ma Ja, points taken. But. The world isn't black and white. I do participate in corporate America, now and then. Yes, I have purchased from Amazon. Yes, I have shopped at giant box stores. Yes, I even have Prime.

However...

I have also shopped farmers markets for many years, for a hefty supply of my food, and helped found a regional seed company growing locally adapted seeds. 

That ​is direct action in a really big picture. Our food supply. I've been doing this for twenty years now, and that is ever so slowly changing the food we all eat for the better. You're welcome.

Maybe you can do stuff on every front at once all the time. 

I can't. I pick and choose, moment to moment, purchase by purchase...including buying used gear from my former Backcountry named store. Gear that may have come from....oh dear.

Re Backcountry ©®£¢π? The really idiotic part of this, is it didn't even "benefit" them in any way whatsoever. None of these places were "confusing" the BC name, and, far as I know, none went out of business over it, these "competitors" that threatened to put BC outta business. Righhht. Just..."backcountry". Sheesh. Backcountry©®€√∆ shot themselves in the foot with this, embarrassingly so.

Best, Helen

Dave K wrote:

I don't think Backcountry's objective was a name change. Their objective was to damage or eliminate other players and in order to gain market share. They are abusing the intent of IP law.

Good to hear that they dropped the lawsuit, but my point about their intent when filing still stands.

I don't understand this argument. Everyone is so up in arms about the Backcountry Babes thing, but in no way does Backcountry lose money to that organization. So to me, it seems as though they were trying to avoid confusion of names, which if I heard "backcountry babes", I could potentially see myself thinking there was some affiliation. But in no way was a lawsuit against backcountry babes giving backcountry more market share.