Update: After a nearly a week of silence — while boycotts and backlash against them spread around the web — backcountry.com released this “letter to our community” last night. Apparently they have “never been interested in owning the word ‘backcountry’ or completely preventing anyone else from using it.” I’d say their actions say otherwise, but ultimately that’s up to consumers to decide.
Businesses and organizations sued over ‘Backcountry’
The letter first arrived in spring 2019, a polite cease and desist addressed from outdoor retail giant backcountry.com to Cripple Creek Backcountry. It stated that CCBC no longer had the legal right to include the word ‘backcountry’ in its name. It was only one of many letters that landed in the hands of small business owners around the country during the past year. The letters demanded that by order of trademark law, organizations employing the word ‘backcountry’ must stop or they’d get sued.
Since then, many have been sued or reached settlements, as detailed by this recent Colorado Sun article. Targets include the avalanche education site Backcountry Babes and jean maker Backcountry Denim. David Ollila, owner of Michigan-based Marquette Backcountry Skis, got a house call from his local sheriff who delivered papers detailing the lawsuit. Marquette discussed the lawsuit last week on the podcast, Wintry Mix. CCBC nervously awaits a followup letter.
To be clear, backcountry.com did file trademark rights for the term backcountry. What they’re doing is not illegal, but it does wade into murky ethical waters. (And full disclosure: for many years, backcountry.com has and continues to support WildSnow through affiliate links). You could say this is just the nature of business. Or you could say a large outdoor retailer is bullying small businesses in order to solidify its position at the head of the industry. The bigger question in my mind mind, though, is whether a business or organization should be able own the rights to the name of experience shared and valued among devoted groups of people, particularly if that ownership is sought on the grounds of selling more of the products people use to access that experience.
The whole affair reminds me of a time over a decade ago when yoga was hitting the mainstream. The ancient philosophy had been found to have measurable health benefits (not excluding fine tuning of womens’ derrieres) and the founder of Bikram Yoga — a sequence of 26 poses completed during a 90 minute period in a room heated to 95-108 degrees — decided that he would copyright the sequence and to sue small studios around the US who offered any variation of it (which was based on long-standing practices; he did not devise it himself).
I was interning at a yoga magazine at the time, which was situated in an ashram in northeastern Pennsylvania. The ashram prided itself in upholding foundational roots of the practice of yoga as philosophy and spirituality, which ran counter to the fitness frenzy behind its growing popularity, particularly Bikram style hot yoga. Residents and practitioners at the ashram voiced shock and disgust that someone would propose something so asinine as copyrighting a spiritual practice that was, at its core, a rigorous path to enlightenment and had been for thousands of years. (In 2015, an affiliate court ruled that Bikram yoga is not entitled to copyright protection).
Many of us in the backcountry skiing community consider the backcountry experience a similar path to a sort of enlightened state of being. We venture into untracked terrain in frigid temps and deep snow without cell service to get farther from society and closer to ourselves. The backcountry is symbolic of freedom, adventure and beauty, ironically a place to escape the consumer rigamarole of capitalism and all of the pressures, expectations and distractions therein.
On a less philosophical level, we can look to the term ‘backcountry’ as a term wholly assimilated into ski and outdoor vernacular. This makes the trademarking of ‘backcountry’ hard to defend. For example, if you Google ‘Corn Flakes,’ you’ll see that the term itself can’t be trademarked. It’s just a type of cereal. As a corn flakes maker, the name ‘Kelloggs’ can be trademarked, but they’d need to spend a lot of money on marketing to defend their position as the sole corn flake specialist of the breakfast cereal market.
Of course, though, companies need to protect their positions within the spheres of the industry. And as consumers, we buy things that allow our backcountry experiences to be more comfortable and safe, more fun and efficient. Capitalism encourages innovation so that the products allowing us embark on those experiences are constantly improving. This is only natural and we as consumers benefit. But should any business, large or small, be given the reins to lay legal claim to the very ideal that brings us all together?
Readers, weigh in. Should someone own ‘backcountry’?
80 comments
Seems like a particularly A-hole thing to do.
Hopefully they figure out that this sort of negative publicity and behaviour doesn’t boost their position.
I won’t be spending any money with them in the future.
better trademark wildsnow before its too late!!!
F*CK backcountry.com. They’ve seen the last penny they ever will from me.
“The whole affair reminds me of a time over a decade ago when yoga was hitting the mainstream. The ancient philosophy had been found to have measurable health benefits (not excluding fine tuning of womens’ derrieres)”
Not really a funny addition given the rampant sexism in the outdoor industry. Tru again Wild Snow. Why does it always have to come back to hyper sexualizing womxn?
Hi Juliana– I actually used that phrasing intentionally to illustrate how absurd the whole thing was. The fitness craze was largely oriented around yoga as the path for women to perfect their physiques. I’m a female well aware of sexism in the outdoor industry and pressures placed on women to look a certain way. Appreciate your comment, but there’s no ulterior motive here to enforce sexism.
Absolutely not.
Sad to read this indeed happened to CCBC. I also worry about Backcountry Experience in Durango. These are great retailers who have worked hard to build their businesses. It’s a shame to see BC.com stoop this low.
Thank you for writing your thoughts on this. It’s been interesting to watch this spread like wildfire throughout the industry the past few days. It’s not good press for bc.com. They’ve officially jumped the shark.
Owning the backcountry precludes it from being backcountry. What a sham, the examples you point to must set up a precedent for dismissing backcountry as a trademark.
What an extremely ironic word to claim ownership of, and what a shameful action for bc.com to take. Two courses of action come to mind:
1) Consumers: boycott the company. This is easy to do as there are plenty of excellent alternatives.
2) Retailers and companies using the word “backcountry”: do what you do best. Be creative, proactive and find a smart way to work around their rules, then capitalize on it.
A third action comes to mind. Log onto bc.com and wait for that cute customer service agent to pop up. Then tell that agent (respectfully) what you think about their action and that you will no longer shop with them. Then ask him/her to relay the message as high up the chain of command as possible. Imagine all wildsnow readers did this!
Pretty much guarantees my future online gear shopping will be going to Evo.com, REi.com and my local shops…
I thought I read that the trademark was denied and now they’re just bullying people. A good enough reason for me to shop elsewhere.
I really find this to be a cheap move on the part of BC.com
I followed Andys idea of logging onto the site and chatting. Said my peace respectfully and to the point.Hit submit and waited for a response. It did not come. To be honest I was not expecting anything. I did get a “how did we do” canned response however which was kind of funny.
Hopefully they listen to their employees, the people really dealing with the customers.
No, no and NO! Tradmarkong “backcountry.com” is fair enough, but not the word backcountry. The fact that they are not suing the bigger players, like BCA (maybe they settled in some fashion), who could fight back and are just going after small guys and community projects is the hallmark of bullying. That’s what this is – bullying – plain and simple. Big, lawyer and shareholder driven greed and bullying.
Their actions are the antithesis of what most backcountry users endorse and so they’ve already done immeasurable damage to their brand through this action and deserve all the fallout they get. I’m certainly shopping elsewhere in future
Backcountry Access is also owned by a private equity firm (same one who owns K2 and Volkl), so there’s your answer for why they haven’t been sued yet. Backcountry.com is just going after the little fish who aren’t able to mount a big defense.
More content about fine tuning would be greatly appreciated!
Heard about this briefly on the Blister Gear 30 podcast…I know CCBC is involved but it’d be great to hear a podcast devoted to the topic and perhaps a state of the state style riff on the industry…
Whoever thought this was a good idea at BC.com should probably lose their job…they’re not protecting anything other than their bottom line, which, will be missing one more customer…
Keep fighting the good fight and thank you for being rad!
Usual David & Goliath move favoured by the liars (I mean lawyers:)) Just happened in the UK with Volkswagen wielding their weight – they should know better from their recent debacle over emissions cheating! Good news is that “David” won – see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-50267197
Good article from M. There is some serious weirdness here. For starters, it’s not really too bad a black hole to check out the U.S. Trademark office and look at the trademarks using the text “backcountry.” Here is a link to get you started. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4802%3A1z9ga3.1.1&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
Second, I’m no stranger to trademarks, having registered Wild Snow quite a few years ago.
Thing is, trade marks are specific to a realm of goods and services. For example, Backcountry Babes is trademarked as a guide service and educator. Backcountry.com trademarked the word “Backcountry” (more than once) on selling outdoors gear. To begin, my understanding is if Backcountry Babes had tried to file as a gear seller, they would have been denied because Backcountry.com already had the trademark for that. By the same token, while anyone can try to bring anyone else to court, Backcountry.com getting before a judge with Backcountry Babes would go nowhere, and, Backcountry Babes might even be able to take successful legal action in return.
Check the other “backcountry” trademarks. You’ll see for example an older one related to perfume. Again, no way would Backcountry.com have any basis for to bring an infringement action against a perfume company. There is even a “Backcountry” trademark for someone selling toy guns. If they got a notice from Backcountry.com, they probably sat there and laughed for ten minutes.
I can not comprehend what Backcountry.com is doing, unless it’s been blown out of proportion and they’re actually only targeting “Backcountry” trademark holders that are doing something similar, in selling outdoors gear online. But I’m just not seeing that to be the case. Am awaiting clarification. It would be nice if they made a public statement. And, I like Backcountry.com. They’ve been good to our family through affiliate sales here on WildSnow (thanks everyone!), and have served zillions of customers over the years in some of the best online retail performance around. I hope this is just a weird glitch. Lou
The latest application wants the trademark to apply to everything from truck ramps (because motosport) to pint glasses. They have really upped the ante- interesting to note that the latest applicatino was denied- likely because it’s too braod and covers too many catergories and is for “backcountry” istelf and not “backcountry.com” like ir originally was.
Not that I agree or disagree with anything said here. Just want to add that I haven’t seen ‘.com’ messaged as part of their branding for some time. I think it may have been drooped before or after they added that circle to the goat
More clarification. Wild Snow is trademarked as a publishing trademark. If someone wanted to name a truck the “Wild Snow” edition, and trademark that, they’d have a perfect right to do so. Or closer to home, say they wanted to start a publication about snowmobiling, called Wild Snow Magazine, it’s possible we could get a ruling against that. But of course one never knows for sure until the judge speaks or the negotiations finish. Lou
And, there is the elephant in the room here. Cripple Creek _Backcountry_. Once this is all resolved, I’d imagine there might be some interesting tidbits about that! Oh, and does anyone remember when Backcountry.com was called Backcountry Store, and they bought the domain name backcountry.com for some huge amount of money? It goes on and on and on… AND, one more thing! My understanding is that a huge grey area exists here, in that you can claim you have a “trademark” without ever officially registering it! By virtue of operating as or using a given logo or textual term. Thus, anyone using the word Backcountry for their business some time ago might be immune from Backcountry.com’s tactic. A good example would again be Backcountry Babes. I’m pretty sure they’ve been in business longer than Backcountry.com…
I’m unclear on why they’re doing this – what do they hope to gain from bullying smaller shops to change their name? There’s no way that anyone is confusing Backcountry.com with Cripple Creek Backountry, the Marquette Backountry Ski, etc, etc….
I was a frequent Backcountry.com customer until recently – I’m definitely not shopping there again until they adopt better behavior. Hoping others will join as well. It’s going to be annoying to take them off the list of frequently used sites so I hope that customer action will inspire them to change.
You can email info@backcountry.com to give BC your feedback on this.
Just quit buying anything from Backcountry and spread the word,
Sort of like when Vail Resorts, Inc. cruised into Park City and tried to trademark “Park City.” lol. That one didn’t go over well locally. Pretty silly efforts by Backcountry, a Park City, Utah, company with—one would think—awareness of this very similar recent controversy.
The term “backcountry” has been in common use long before backcountry.com was even conceived. As soon as I hear that the threats from backcountry.com have ceased, I will resume shopping there.
Backcountry.com has created a huge problem for themselves. I know myself and all my friends won’t ever shop there over this. I hope ultimately this is the cause of their own demise. Backcountry is a magical place where we all can escape everyday life, enjoying nature in it’s purest form. Not something you own.
backcountryedge.com changed names a few months back. I wonder if this was the reason.
This sucks. I’ve spent many dollars on their site but until they stop this crap and make a public statement about this, I’ll be spending my $$$ elsewhere. I’ve emailed info@backcountry.com to let them know. I hope more people do too.
Feedback sent to info@backcountry.com. No more shipping there for me.
TSG has a lot more brands which probably are more valuable than BC.com, I for one will be boycotting and spreading the word on the brands owned by them!
A few of their outdoor relevant brands are:
* Canyon bikes (when will they try to enforce the trademark on “canyon”?!) They are probably the biggest and most profitable outdoor brand they have, pressure in the cycling press would be very effective!
* Brewdog (shame sine the beer is good)
* Bergfreunde.de
It’s most definitely bullying. The word ” backcountry” is a location, granting trademark status opened this possibility up. All of us backcountry enthusiasts need to peel off our goat stickers, boycott backcountry.com, and start letting them know it’s our word (and location) not theirs to bully with.
Sorry to read this as I wake up this morning! Andy at Wilson Backcountry on Teton Pass has been printing a sticker for awhile now “backcountry.com sucks support your local shop.” I will continue to do just that. Thanks for the article.
Many years ago, Specialized threatened a suit against Stumptown coffee here in Portland, Oregon, for conflict with the trademarked Stumpjumper bike.
Why coffee would be confused with a mountain bike is one thing, more important is that Portland was nicknamed Stumptown during the early years of development.
The bike shops in Portland had a freak out and made a combined effort to advise Specialized that if they went any further, not only would the bike shops be forced to drop their products but the Specialized name in Portland would be poison for an unforeseen number of years.
The power of the pocketbook prevailed and Specialized quietly dropped the legal proceedings. Stumptown coffee is now available nationwide.
That’s great. I actually used Specialized as an example in a letter I wrote to BC.com:
Specialized makes pretty good bikes. They are also a company who have completely lost their soul. Mike Sinyard (president of Specialized) was a mountain bike icon, one of the founding fathers of the sport. Sadly, becoming a corporate giant can sometimes kill your spirit, as is the case here. Evidence of that? Despite “borrowing” much of their product design from other companies, they are the first to sue anyone who builds something even remotely similar to what they offer. Sad that they are now often know for this, rather than building good bikes.
Sound familiar?
I will NEVER buy a Specialized product, EVER.
Hopefully they got the point.
Ironically, BC.com’s parent company now owns stumptown coffee
Mountain out of a molehill. Businesses do this everyday to protect their investments and commercial brand for advertising. See Black Diamond, Patagonia, and Sierra as they have the same paperwork, so maybe we should boycott them too? Unless their is a difference? Say you make a product for backcountry skiing and stick “Patagonia AT Binding” on it you’re going to court. Write a book about adventure skiing in Patagonia you’re probably OK. With so many outdoor online stores, this is only logical for BC.
It would surprise me if you have an example of Patagonia using their superior legal resources to force small companies to change their names. It would not surprise me if you are just spouting off with no sources.
“Mountain out of a molehill”?
Seriously?
Tell that to the small companies that face court cost they can’t hope to afford.
They aren’t just sending cease and desist but asking for punitive damages. Also their latest application was denied. Backcountry appealed but it’s on pending status. The term is overly broad and non-specific and they want it to apply to everything from pint glasses to truck ramps. They simply don’t want anyone to use the word “backcountry” anywhere unless they’re business partners.
Waterboard the Backcountry.com management until they become re-educated, using only backcountry water from certified artesian springs.
This is so ridiculous. It is a major stretch to brand name a term to describe exploring into the wilderness: backcountry was used as a standard description way before that company ever used it.
Good work Manasseh on reflecting my thoughts to a T.
I worked for a publishers some years ago that brought out a magazine called ‘Essential Superbike’ – needless to say the rival publishers of ‘Superbike’ magazine tried to sue us to stop us using the name, but the judge in the case ruled the term ‘superbike’ was too generic to copyright and anyone could use it.
Good luck to all those who use backcountry in future – you should be free to do so.
Thanks all for your thoughtful comments and contributions. I heard from a friend who works at a shop in Idaho that formerly had Backcountry in the name. They changed their name and settled out of court two years ago. Media has been slow to pick this up, maybe due to the NDAs signed at settlement. It’ll be interesting to see where things go as the word spreads…
Backcountry.com just lost my business.
Lou – I don’t know where you came up with Wild Snow, but it is unique, and it is yours. If someone did start a Wild Snow Magazine, I would assume it was you as I never hear anyone else use wild snow in a sentence. So I would certainly hope that no random individual would be able to start a Wild Snow Magazine.
But backcountry is ubiquitous in the conversations of hunters, skiers, slednecks, ….., and babes.
As a frequent buyer from backcountry.com over the years, last year I decieded I would spread the love, and purchased my Tecnica Zero G Pro Tours from CCBC. Quite glad that I did. Gonna get the wifey a pair this year too, but not from backcountry.com.
“Consumers: boycott the company. This is easy to do as there are plenty of excellent alternatives.”
Agreed. This is a abusive. They’re off the vendors list, they should fire whatever idiot attorney suggested this.
I’m out. Although I like their selection and service online, their shipping to AK is stupid expensive so I almost always never order from them. Now, I won’t even bother looking at their site.
Bergfreunde.de is alpintrek. co.uk here in UK. Shame as they have amazing customer service. I stopped buying from them when I found out about those bandit tactics!
Bruno, since you were wondering how I came up with the unique and in the end quite nice term “Wild Snow.” When I was writing the history book that would become _Wild Snow_, I consulted a poet friend about how to stimulate the brain in coming up with phrases/titles. He said a standard process is to make a list, two columns, one nouns and one adjectives, that pertain to what one is writing about. Then simply draw interconnecting lines between word combos that seem to express the spirit of the project. So I did so. The list was about 30 lines long, 60 words. “Snow” was of course on the list. As was “Wild.” The combo soon lept out at me and the rest is history (ha ha). And by the way, the title of a publication actually can not be trademarked and is not subject to copyright. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/can-a-book-title-be-copyrighted-3974593
The term “Wild Snow” is trademarked as to it being used pertaining to publishing. But interestingly, you can’t trademark a book title no more than you can copyright it. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure a magazine name actually can be trademarked, as it the title of a collection. As is a blog name/title.
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/can-trademark-title/
After studying copyright and trademark, one thing became clear. This is yet another area that requires the services of lawyers, but on the other hand is such a mess it places an undue burden on non-lawyer folks when we have to pay lawyers to help sort it out. As I’m sure is happening behind the scenes with this “backcountry” debacle.
Then, shouldn’t Backcountry Magazine have a greater claim to the trademark? considering they have been using that business name for 25 years.
It seems to me that the true purpose of a trademark or even patent should be that it generates MORE choice and MORE options for the market, while at the same time protecting the investment of anyone wanting to invest in providing those choices. Hence – if backcountry.com could argue successfully that by “co-opting” their name, all these other outfits are effectively reducing competition and reducing choice, or are harming backcountry.com’s business – then they might have a case.
As it stands, however, its clear that this is not an attempt to protect a company name, or even the cache associated with the Brand “backcountry.com” – its purely an attempt to stifle competition. Backcountry.com knows this – they don’t honestly believe they have a title to that word. They’re just trying to make it easier for them to be all ten of the first results on a google search for “backcountry”. Even if they don’t fully succeed, simply driving a fair number to change their name or to drop their website will result in lower costs for SEO and marketing.
Since it reduces choice and competition, and hence will raise prices, it ought to be rejected purely on economics – not just ethics. I’m no lawyer – but my guess is, if it was argued this way, it probably won’t go through…
But again – they don’t have to win to make this plan a winner. In fact – the lawyers have probably already paid for themselves a few times over as this is being debated.
FWIW, I just removed all of the BC/SAC affiliate links from 14ers.com. The links have been on the 14ers.com home and support pages for years and provided vital affiliate kickbacks to help me pay for the site but I just can’t stomach how they are treating small companies. In summer, this means an average of 25,000 users a day will not see their logo and in winter, 9,000/day. I’ve also emailed them my concerns.
THANK YOU- Bill this is so good of you to do. Thank you <3
Things must be tough at bc.com to justify such a low blow. Are they going to start a legal feud with Backcountry magazine too? I mean it’s not the NYT but they have a wider publishing company backing them up. Or is this an isolated tactic towards the small retailers, which a lot of us are often more inclined to spend our money with for various reasons. I am based in Europe and I can tell you that I will boycott bergrfeunde.eu, which is their partner this side of the pond. You may call most wildsnow.com readers lefties and what not but I find it very difficult to morally justify such a move (kuddos to the author for trying to see the problem from both sides).
Many many years ago, JRAT climbing gear labeled some of their gear “Ratagonia”. When Chouinard’s lawyers sent a threatening letter, JRAT promptly printed the letter on T Shirts and sold those.
I think Lou’s implied distinction between “wild” and “domesticated” or, rather, “industrialized” snow is brilliant. And, I’ve adopted the phrase into my vocab. It is now sitting there fully naturalized, ready to spring to my lips or finger tips. So far, Lou has not threatened legal action. Keep it up, Lou!
.
Next on today’s list is contacting Backcountry.com. Offending their entire base of customers, potential and actual, is stupid as well as unethical.
It’s like trademarking the word “Road” or “Trails”
Beyong assinine.
Unfortunately, BC.com was sold to a corporate giant with no soul to lose. “Ethical” is not in their vocabulary. Money is their only motivator and it’s the only place we can hurt them. Here is a letter I sent:
Specialized makes pretty good bikes. They are also a company who have completely lost their soul. Mike Sinyard (president of Specialized) was a mountain bike icon, one of the founding fathers of the sport. Sadly, becoming a corporate giant can sometimes kill your spirit, as is the case here. Evidence of that? Despite “borrowing” much of their product design from other companies, they are the first to sue anyone who builds something even remotely similar to what they offer. Sad that they are now often know for this, rather than building good bikes.
Sound familiar?
I will NEVER buy a Specialized product, EVER.
I just sent this email to Backcountry.com. I have spent thousands of dollars on their site and now I regret it.
To whom it may concern,
As a long time customer of this company, I am very disappointed with your attempts to trademark the WORD “Backcountry” and subsequent lawsuits filed against small companies who have been using this ubiquitous term in their names for years. It is a shameful abuse of corporate power and wealth, and is the very antithesis of the spirt and inclusive culture of the community who recreates in the actual backcountry.
I guess that the success your company has enjoyed, built on the dollars that we as a community have spent, has gone to your corporate heads. Is this approach really going to drive enough SEO based internet traffic to your site to counter the loss in revenue from consumers like myself who will not condone this type of corporate philosophy? It is interesting that a company who utilized the power of the internet to build its brand, could be so unaware of the power of that same internet and its attendant social media to destroy the good faith you built with consumers. I have already seen/heard at least 5 websites and 2 podcasts, calling your actions into question, and the 100% negative responses/comments on those sites should give you pause.
I, for one, am done spending my “Backcountry” dollars on your site. As I pass this information on to my circle of friends, I know they will too. The avalanche of negativity has just begun for your brand. We’ll see how far it travels down slope.
Oh, and just deleted both BC.com and S&C from my bookmarks.
Also, if they want to see true copyright infringment, I’m thinking the mountain goat logo with the circle/slash through it.
I’d rock one on each vehicle, each pair of skis, etc.
It’s really important to note that the brand was denied the trademark application, even after the lawsuits began. I know I will never spend another dollar with them again. They may as well have just tried to corner the words “Freedom” and “Hills.” I don’t hold hope that they will learn from this as 1- TSG is an investor group that prides themselves on brand protection 2. They only see the backcoutnry as a cash cow, not the experience or even the humans that comprise the backcountry culture, and 3. they are currently trying to get the trademark so they can make the brand more valuable before they sell it.
Please show your support on Boycott Backcountry.com on Facebook.
Will no longer buy from them until this is dropped. What’s next? Trademark the word “Ski”?
How about Cripple Creek Back Country instead of backcountry?. See what I did there.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/specialized-withdraws-action-against-cafe-roubaix-in-trademark-dispute-22586
That’s an awesome example of a public outpouring of indignation making a difference.
TSG may be a souless company but they do understand profits and boycots and bad publicity affect profits. Being demonized by your primary market is a bad way to launch a product line.
No one should own the word “backcountry”. I think the outrage about this action should be directed at the CEO of TSG Consumer Partners, Chuck Esserman, and not at the people at Backcountry.com. TSG Consumer Partners are the owners of Backcountry.com and most likely the source of this decision. I think that complaining to the customer service people at backcountry.com is not the best approach. These people didn’t make the decision and surely didn’t sign up to get caught in the middle of a greedy corporate decision.
Go straight to the top and it looks like Chuck is at the top. You can find his email in the link below.
http://www.tsgconsumer.com/team/chuck-esserman
@Alan Crawford
Hit the nail on the head. What seems more surprising to me than the actions taken by BC.com lawyers, is the general naivete demonstrated by all this internet outrage. No one working at BC.com HQ has any say whatsoever in these actions. This, unfortunately, is run of the mill trademark bs pushed by law firms who quite frankly don’t give a crap who the customers are or what their ‘community’ is all about. TSG knows full well that this will calm down with time and people will forget about it. Plus, with the holidays coming up, they’ll have no problem raking in sales from the thousands (or millions?) of people who haven’t heard about this dispute, or just don’t care. It’s no different than everyone who rants on social media “I’m never flying XYZ airline again” after the slightest delay then 6 months later buys another ticket with them because they have the cheapest fare. People forget and when it comes time to pull out their wallet, their outrage is suddenly quelled when the price it right.
On a side note, has Vail resorts every gone after anyone for using their ‘epic’ trademark? That ones always baffled me.
This Backcountry move is classic over-weening lawyer nonsense. Bullying, as most will feel the need to hire a lawyer to defend oneself against an idiotic claim (heard by potentially an idiotic judge.
Did you know there are (probably ‘were’ now) two Bloomingdales department stores?
The one you’ve heard of, and the first one to use the name, in Maine.
They succeeded in fighting off the second Bloomingdales’ trademark suit by the simple virtue of having already been using the name.
At least for the state of Maine.
A similar suit happened with Budweiser and the original Budweiser beer company. ?
Does anyone know if the trademark has actually been awarded to Backcountry.com? Every article I have seen has referenced that the firm has “filed for” trademark protection. Has that protection actually been conveyed?
https://www.backcountry.com/sc/a-letter-to-our-community
That is indeed some villainous, black-moustache twirling, weak-assed, silicon valley, faux mea culpa, CYA BS right there (…then again, and despite the 37.5 angry proletarians here, if they’re having a 50% off sale on some sweet planks, I’m all over it like a mofo).
Thanks for sharing that Art! I’ve always liked Backcountry.com and they are/were instrumental to supporting this website. So nice to see them making an effort to be reasonable with their trademark actions. And Quasi, last time I looked Backcountry had several trademarks. Remember that trademarks are limited to a specific business use of the trademarked words or image. There is also someone with a trademark for “Backcountry” when used for branding perfume. Totally legit, legal, etc. But what happens with all this is typical, in that the lawyers with the bigger club, er, I mean budget, win because the little guy doesn’t have the bigger club. Again, nice to see Backcountry might be backing off from swinging their club.
https://www.backcountry.com/sc/a-letter-to-our-community?avad=2661_b179229e1&PubID=2250&PubName=www.wildsnow.com
-scrapes goat sticker off the subaru-
It makes sense to me a lawyer would think to do this, it doesn’t make sense to me that corporate officers would let them.
Unless they are trying to put the name down as an asset to bolster their position ahead of a sale/merger, and realized they needed to do some saber rattling to prove they own it.
Absolutely ridiculous though.
I’m curious – the letter backcountry.com published said they dropped the suit against Marquette Backcountry Skis. What about others like CCBC? If it’s only Marquette that’s getting the reprieve, I’m happy for them but will still shop elsewhere…
No word yet. They haven’t been in contact since the initial letter.
Yeah, it’s positively bizarre that the letter only mentions that they are “withdrawing the Marquette Backcountry action.” I’m pretty familiar with backcountry gear, and I had never heard of Marquette Backcountry. Near as I can tell, Marquette has 2 products— an injection molded plastic “ski” and a shelf for carrying a gallon jug on a motorcycle. If sparing Marquette from the threat of legal action, while continuing to threaten all other “backcountry companies,” is all backcountry.com is doing, then the letter is an insult to the “Backcountry Community” they claim to be part of.
Manasseh, enough with the backcountry BS, what happened to that Andrew McLean podcast?