Backcountry.com not playing nice

I've also spent thousands at Backcountry.com. And I do understand IP law pretty well. I'm not pissed that Backcountry would go after someone deliberately aping their name/look/design/products to create consumer confusion at their detriment. They should do that all they want. But going after non-profits and small businesses that aren't doing ANYTHING of that sort is douchey and unethical. I'm actually DISAPPOINTED in them because my actual interactions with the business until now have been quite great. But I've also got plenty of options of places to spend my outdoor equipment budget and will be doing that. 

“This is not going away. If your next communication is anything other than a complete acceptance of settlement terms, we will understand you have no intent to comply with our client’s requests and we will proceed accordingly,” White wrote. “Please be aware that my client will not be inclined to resolve this matter amicably if it is forced to oppose your application or formally litigate the matter.”

From ErikaNW's link.  What an incredible display of arrogance.  These guys can go eat a dik.  

The name is worth more than they invested into it.  Many others have also invested into it.  Now they're bullying and stealing that equity away from all others for themselves.  From a purely legal standpoint, that is not the intent of the law either.  I think they'd lose and they know it and they don't even care.  If the name was "Zuma" or some such - then yes - sue away.  "Backcountry"?  Give me a break.  

I have about $1500 lifetime total spent there - probably not their biggest customer.  It won't be difficult at all to make that zero.

The first thing Backcountry.come needs to do to start making things right is to fire that law firm and the person(s) who brought them in.

Not related to their douchey lawsuits, but I keep seeing backcountry.com internet ads that show for example a pair of climbing shoes at 67% off and then you click on it and its not on sale at all, just a lie to get you to their site. More douchebaggery tactics from them?

Bill Schick wrote: From ErikaNW's link.  What an incredible display of arrogance.  These guys can go eat a dik.  

  If the name was "Zuma" or some such - then yes - sue away.  "

Already a lot of businesses with Zuma in the name. It's a famous LA County Beach.

But your point is valid. 

Here is my local shops egregious thievery of the intellectual property "backcountry":

Both logos are the state of Idaho (partially covered) and they are now on to a different iteration of their logo. Ironically, yes, those are goat horns peeking out. It's my first water bottle.

That wording above? Is pretty much what my guys got too. Today is their 7th anniversary, and the shop is doing great! Swing by Boise and grab a beer, eh?

Best, Helen

They also own competitive cyclist for the stone pullers that cross lines and pedal bikes if it matters to them.

was backcountryedge.com also hit with a lawsuit? they changed their name to enwild.

Aside from protecting their brand/trademark etc, which maybe they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place because it is to common of a word, what do they really have to gain? It’s not like the litigation is making them loads of money? I don’t understand how it is so evil that they are just trying to avoid confusion between their name and others?

The goat - back when backcountry.com started using it as a logo - it immediately struck me as an egregious rip-off of Pagan in Moab.  It never bothered me until now.

​Pagan Mountaineering​​​

Travis S wrote: Aside from protecting their brand/trademark etc, which maybe they shouldn’t have gotten in the first place because it is to common of a word, what do they really have to gain? It’s not like the litigation is making them loads of money? I don’t understand how it is so evil that they are just trying to avoid confusion between their name and others?

Nobody said they're making loads of money from it. That, in fact, is part of what makes it even more egregious. But they're costing the defendants in all these vexatious lawsuits a bunch of money. Both to defend or through having to rebrand their existing businesses. 

I think they are missing an opportunity to sue Clear Creek County for their flagrant & disrespectful population of mountain goats- backcountry.com's logo.

....and I guess while they were in Moab ripping off all these names and logos - they grabbed "Gearheads" as well.  Gearheads has been around forever.

Gearheads

Seems to me the best defense is an offense, if people are collecting money for legal fees.

Señor Arroz wrote:

Nobody said they're making loads of money from it. That, in fact, is part of what makes it even more egregious. But they're costing the defendants in all these vexatious lawsuits a bunch of money. Both to defend or through having to rebrand their existing businesses. 

So they’re not making money but they are a greedy corporate company? Because that has definitely been said. 

Travis S wrote:

So they’re not making money but they are a greedy corporate company? Because that has definitely been said. 

Greedy: Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power.

Shoe seems to fit, here, taking the literal names away from small businesses and non-profits.

The contact info of the mother company is below.  I encourage folks to call the San Francisco office like I did.

http://www.tsgconsumer.com/contact

Additionally note their other brands:
http://www.tsgconsumer.com/portfolio

Señor Arroz wrote:

Greedy: Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power.

Shoe seems to fit, here, taking the literal names away from small businesses and non-profits.

So it gives them wealth or power? It’s certainly not wealth and to say it gives them power over their actual competitors like moosejaw or something seems like a stretch. 

Travis S wrote:

So it gives them wealth or power? It’s certainly not wealth and to say it gives them power over their actual competitors like moosejaw or something seems like a stretch. 

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

sherb wrote:

In Patent law, if the public has known about some invention or it has been in use, even if no one else has a patent on it, no one else can patent it because allowing that would be taking something away from the public. Imagine if someone patented the wheel and prohibited all others from using a wheel!

backcountry.com who was kindly allowed by the public to use this favored term describing adventure in the great outdoors for their business is now trying to monopolize the name for themselves to the exclusion of all others,  away from the public who had created it and used it since the 1700s to describe gear/classes/adventuring in that environment. 

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?

Bill Schick wrote:

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

But once again, backcountry.com was legally allowed to register 'backcountry' as a trademark. If they had not registered this trademark, someone else could have registered 'backcountry' and therefore forced backcountry.com to change their name.