Backcountry.com not playing nice

Bill Schick wrote:

It should be pretty obvious the name has value beyond their own investment - thus the point of this entire discussion.

So if the name has value and they have a trademark they have every right to defend that, no?

I don't eat donuts, but here's a story about a company that is playing NICE with people trying to make a living.

https://www.twincities.com/2019/11/04/krispy-kreme-relents-the-donut-guy-is-back-in-business/

Steve G wrote:

Totally valid points sherb and OLH.

Backcountry.com was allowed to register 'backcountry' as a trademark even though it's widely used verbiage - this is an issue with how the government allows for trademarks to exist on common words. This is not backcountry.com's fault.

I challenge you to think about the inverse - what if someone else registered 'backcountry' as a trademark and forced backcountry.com to change their name and website address?

There's a fun instance of this, way, way back. McDonald's! A little mom and pop kept their name, they had it first. McDonald's didn't change, obviously.

Look, to me? This is still a smallish thing and just bad PR for Backcountry. It's seems like a not well thought out business decision for these little companies. Now, if they had to go after everyone to get after someone who did ​mimic their brand? That, I can see. Otherwise, it just makes them appear churlish to their own customers. Not a good thing, especially when many of us (myself included) have had pretty darn good customer service from them otherwise.

In terms of giant corps versus small guys? I'm far more concerned with our food crops, personally. Sueing a farmer for theft of the genes your multinational corporation has patented, drifting onto his ​field from your frankencrop? Insane and scary.

I understand "intellectual property" and patents on something new, but patents are headed toward genetic material in general. That, is also nuts. And scary.

Vote with your dollars, peeps, whenever you can. Make noise when you can, too. Eventually, lots of small stuff does add up to change over the longer haul, sometimes seemingly overnight.

Best, Helen

Dumbest post ever.  It’s how corporate America works, sorry.  If they have the lowest prices, I’ll be sure to shop there.  
I can assure everyone that the climber boycott won’t put them out of business.  Who knew they serve other industries besides climbing.  

Joe Trabucco wrote: Dumbest post ever.  It’s how corporate America works, sorry.  If they have the lowest prices, I’ll be sure to shop there.  
I can assure everyone that the climber boycott won’t put them out of business.  Who knew they serve other industries besides climbing.  

Climbers love SJ causes... That has been hugely apparent of late on the forums.

Dave K wrote:

It's not that simple:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3Ayjt388.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=backcountry&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

I don't know if the link will work, but a simple search for the word 'backcountry' in the trademark database yields over a hundred matches. Any of these could these could sue any of the others. Who will win? That's a question for the courts to answer when someone actually does file a suit.

But it often doesn't get to the courts. If a big player sues a small player, the small player may not have the resources to fight, even if they are in the right. The law is designed to support fair outcomes but reality doesn't always work that way. Backcountry.com is owned by a big corporation that can easily intimidate smaller players into not even putting up a fight. It seems that they are taking that approach. It's corporate bullying.

Okay this makes sense

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.

Porch Henry wrote: Sent an email to the CEO and the customer experience email. I got this response 4 minutes later:

My name is not David...

Seems they can't be bothered to change the name on their generic, copy-paste response.

LOL

Patrick Burke wrote: Seems like their values don't align with mine anymore. Bummer. Their lawyer also did them no favors, with the way he communicated with a small, independent, female-owned coffee roaster.
Also, he looks like he came straight from central casting, auditioning for the role of "Shady, sweaty, cocaine-addicted, corporate lawyer": https://ipla.com/teammember/benjamin-s-white/ 

I’m pretty sure a guy that got his law degree in 2011 isn’t large and in charge.  Not sure why you’d drag him into this.  Not that I buy at BC, or plan to in the future. 

The Universe is an awfully big place.     There is room enough for an awful lot of people to be right about things and still not agree

Wah wah wah wah 

Joe Trabucco wrote: Dumbest post ever.  It’s how corporate America works, sorry.  If they have the lowest prices, I’ll be sure to shop there.  
I can assure everyone that the climber boycott won’t put them out of business.  Who knew they serve other industries besides climbing.  

Joe Trabucco wrote: Dumbest post ever.  It’s how corporate America works, sorry.  If they have the lowest prices, I’ll be sure to shop there.  
I can assure everyone that the climber boycott won’t put them out of business.  Who knew they serve other industries besides climbing.  

There is always that guy calling other people stupid...

I'll just respond to the last sentence. I am sure it is getting out to other communities, especially since they are so mixed, alla skiers, mntbikers, or it soon will be. It may have started in the ski industry anyway.

M Sprague wrote:

There is always that guy calling other people stupid...

I'll just respond to the last sentence. I am sure it is getting out to other communities, especially since they are so mixed, alla skiers, mntbikers, or it soon will be. It may have started in the ski industry anyway.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do know that it has been on the front page of hackernews all day.   news.ycombinator.com/

curt86iroc wrote:

You're not wrong Joe, you're just an asshole (and I agree with you).

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.

Say I dont and just keep it to the facts at hand and the subject of this thread. Now what?

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.

Facebook is a made-to-purpose word like Xerox or Nerf. Sue away! Amazon: Show me where they're doing the same, ie. suing orgs or companies that are not in their space. Ie. https://www.delfinamazoncruises.com/. Apple: They're really aggressive about their REAL IP but I don't see them suing The Apple Pan, Applebys, AppleOne...

John Reeve wrote:

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do know that it has been on the front page of hackernews all day.   news.ycombinator.com/

I also saw it on HN.  Seems like the issue is picking up some steam.

Fun Police wrote:

Ya buddy 

Absolute garbage that they did this. They targeted a snow safety educational company (Backcountry Babes) in CO.

Backcountry.com is like the Ebeneezer Scrouge of wilderness retailers.