Any SCOTT USA employees on here?

#1

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 9:20am

Do Work
offline

Joined: January 2008
Location: Springfield, MA
Post Count: 1,499

You guys should probably tell somebody at the top to do some damage control, this is starting to look like the Monster energy drink debacle, but closer to home. I really do hate to hate ski companies but c'mon guys, get real. Fire some lawyers. They're making you look bad...

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173330

Personally, I won't be buying any SCOTT products from now on, I'd hate to think I was funding their overzealous team of douchebags, er... lawyers with my purchase, no matter how small it may be.

#2

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 9:27am

TheSkiMogul
offline

Joined: February 2009
Location: Stowe, VT
Post Count: 33

I don't know, that sounds kind of legitimate to me. That's almost like ON3P calling the skis "Great Rossignol". ON3P were making beer called Great Scott and Scott told them to stop using the name, then I would say it look bad.

#3

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 9:37am

Whiteroom
offline

Joined: October 2005
Post Count: 3,090

If there wasn't a ski run at Snowbird named GREAT SCOTT... well, I still wouldn't agree, but maybe I'd... no, this is total BS. The phrase 'Great Scott!!' has been around for ever. Do a quick Google search for 'Great Scott' and you'll find TONS of places, trails, countys that use the term.

skiershop.com

#4

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 9:41am

krp8128
offline

Joined: October 2006
Location: Poland, Maine/Rochester, NY
Post Count: 2,120

It might be legit, it might not. There is a very good post @TGR which sums up the issues of trademark infringement; it comes down to how confused could the target market (unfortunately in this case ski buyers) be. My gut says ON3P would be OK in the end. Whiteroom nailed it, this phrase is in common usage and has been for some time, Scott USA really has no case. The problem is the amount of money that he (Scott of ON3P) would have to spend to have a chance at winning this would sink the company.

I think he needs to find a creative way to re-title the ski and say FU to Scott USA at the same time. Satire is OK

Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.

#5

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 9:49am

Do Work
offline

Joined: January 2008
Location: Springfield, MA
Post Count: 1,499

No, ON3P has named their skis after their founding members- Scott being the head dude over there. Caylors, Billy Goats and Wrenegades are all named after people working there. The Billy Mays camp has yet to sue, btw.

#6

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 10:04am

Do Work
offline

Joined: January 2008
Location: Springfield, MA
Post Count: 1,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by krp8128

I think he needs to find a creative way to re-title the ski and say FU to Scott USA at the same time. Satire is OK

I told him he should bastardize the name a bit and rename them the "Skott <3s pole"

#7

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 10:38am

tromano
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Logan, UT
Post Count: 1,974

Seems like a Maggot over reaction. Its hard for me to get worked up about corporate legal issues. SCOTT seems to be following the laws on this one. I think it says alot more bout TradeMark Laws than about SCOTT.

I like my SCOTT skis and I don't have any problem skiing an unpopular brand.

Hopefully ON3P will be left relatively unscathed from this. Its fucking hard to deal with as a small company I am sure.

Edit to add: I think if people don't like our laws and want laws more friendly to small business then that's great But its hard for me to blame any individual company for following the laws and aggressively enforcing their rights.

#8

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 11:07am

Do Work
offline

Joined: January 2008
Location: Springfield, MA
Post Count: 1,499

Tromano, I'm sure ON3P will benefit from the exposure, It just bothers me when deep pocketed companies with teams of lawyers go after upstart/small companies, I hate bullies. Scott still makes good boards and poles, I just don't like the legal action- ON3Ps got its hands full as it is and will likely have to fold, renaming the skis and eating the costs of a new batch of topsheets. SCOTT knows this. There's plenty of things a ski company can spend its money on and while I completely understand the need to protect one's name, I can't help but think that money could have gone into designing a funshape r/r or maybe sponsoring someone rad instead of being whiny little bitches. I hate lawyers. I'm a "fight it out" kind of dude and have always felt like calling a lawyer is a bitch move, but that's just me and my purist heart-and-soulskier bullshit.

#9

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 11:47am

kbuzz
offline

Joined: December 2008
Post Count: 247

I'm a lawyer and i hate this move by Scott. Its abusive b/c there is no real basis for customer confusion which is the hallmark of this type of case. I don't think this is overreaction at all. However, I do think it could be played to On3P's advantage.

This also puts a damper on my move to buy a used pair of mission/punishers. Shit did anyone give Scott a hassle about using religious motifs on their skis? I mean if you want to get technical, how many people died in the crusades? Enough to name a ski after it? Particularly since IMHO that period is not exactly mans finest hour. Can you imagine what would happen if a company came out with ski called the hindu or the jew?

This same thing has happen in the independent audio business and a number of small companies have fought back successfully. (e.g. Dont buy monster cable products)

Funny as i type this the scott mission ski comes up on my tramdock alert ....

#10

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 12:43pm

krp8128
offline

Joined: October 2006
Location: Poland, Maine/Rochester, NY
Post Count: 2,120

Would he have to re-print topsheets? Or did he already pull the pic from his site and replace it with this?

Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.

#11

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 1:27pm

sjjohnston
offline

Joined: February 2003
Post Count: 2,117

Actually, "Great Scott" sounds like a trademark infringement to me, though I'm not sure I quite follow the whole factual background.

It doesn't make any difference what someone's name is. A person named "Ford" can't sell cars with that brand name (or some variation). I also can't slap my own name on Irish whiskey, nor get together with a friend named "Murphy" and start marketing shoes.

So far as I understand it, "Scott" is a brand name used to identify skis, and these other guys are using the name "Great Scott" to identify skis. Hard to see why that possibly wouldn't be an infringment: exact some product; not a prior user of the mark; very minor variation on the protected mark (just added a word to the beginning).

#12

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 1:40pm

slider
offline

Joined: June 2001
Post Count: 4,245

I don't think the owner had any intention of infringment and I don't see any reference to Scott USA on the skis just in text on the website.

#13

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 3:55pm

tromano
offline

Joined: November 2004
Location: Logan, UT
Post Count: 1,974

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbuzz

This also puts a damper on my move to buy a used pair of mission/punishers. Shit did anyone give Scott a hassle about using religious motifs on their skis? I mean if you want to get technical, how many people died in the crusades? Enough to name a ski after it? Particularly since IMHO that period is not exactly mans finest hour. Can you imagine what would happen if a company came out with ski called the hindu or the jew?

Yea cause no other ski MFG has ever used religious motifs in their skis EVER!

#14

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 5:07pm

sjjohnston
offline

Joined: February 2003
Post Count: 2,117

It looks like a straightforward trademark infringement, but the whole thing is really a non-issue. From the post above, I gather that the ski itself doesn't even say "Scott" on it. It looks like the only thing these ON3P guys have to do is to modify their website to eliminate the model name "Great Scott." Total cost: maybe a hundred dollars.

Whether the phrase is in common usage is irrelevant. Many perfectly protectable trademarks are common words or phrases. Just to look at ski ones, all of these are ordinary words, some of which are probably used millions of times a day:
Head
Atomic
Rossignol (in French-speaking countries, anyway)
Hart
Look
Smith
Marker

Just looking around my desk, I'm having trouble finding things with trademarks that aren't ordinary words: Dell, Latitude, Palm, Brother, Canon, Windows, Outlook, Word, Excel, Chase ....

It's also entirely different from the occasional instances in which companies have got over-assertive about trying to stop people from using their marks for unrelated products. This is the exact same product.

#15

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 6:34pm

kbuzz
offline

Joined: December 2008
Post Count: 247

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano

Quote:

Yea cause no other ski MFG has ever used religious motifs in their skis EVER!

Good point tromano. I guess i wasnt as articulate as i should have been in my post. What i wanted to emphasize was not solely the fact that a manuf. used a religious motif --although some would find that objectionable per se -- but i think that the trademark claims are hypocritical.

Stated otherwise, the manufacturer finds ON3P's name "objectionable" but at the same time markets a ski named after a depraved, and arguably genocidal historic period. I can go on and on but i dont want this forum to get dragged down into a religious and/or socio/historical cauldron.

Additionally, and opinions will differ, but i find the the legal trademark claims to be weak at best. As others pointed out, the name scott or the scott mark is not on the skis and thus there is no chance of consumer confusion, period.

Finally, i like the way scott skis ski.....but i wait until this pans out before i buy a pair.

#16

Rating: 0

11/2/09 at 11:43pm

sjjohnston
offline

Joined: February 2003
Post Count: 2,117

Just to clarify: I think on the trademark claim, Scott is pretty clearly correct. My point was that it's very easy for 0N3P to cease and desist from using the name ... which they should simply do, so everybody can stop making a big fuss over Scott doing what any company would do to protect its trademark.

As for the religious point, it's sufficiently irrelevant that it borders on being entirely random.

#17

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 10:26am

skier2369
offline

Joined: September 2008
Location: new york city
Post Count: 120

From what I can tell that top sheet does not say "Scott". This is much to-do about nothing, ON3P should just change the name. Scott produces ski's, of course they don't want a competitor using the name "scott" in their products.

#18

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 11:23am

crgildart
offline

Joined: December 2007
Location: The Bull City
Post Count: 10,778

Scott makes skis? Who knew!

Smell that? Winter's coming!

#19

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 12:52pm

ExoticSkis
offline

Joined: January 2007
Location: Vermont, USA & France
Post Count: 280

I personally think a fellow named Scott Andrus (ON3P) can build and sell a ski with his own name on it.
He may choose to give it up to avoid a distracting and expensive adventure with attorneys and settlements, but like Rock Art Brewery fought Monster Energy Drink (Hansen Beverage) and eventually won the right to market their "Vermonster" beer, Scott Andrus might get great publicity and bump from David v. Goliath challenges like this.

Scott of ON3P is smart and knows what he wants to do.
If he wants to sell a ski with his name on it "Great Scott", I support him.
Truth be told, any attorney hired by Scott Skis should be fired if (s)he did NOT file a cease and whoa nellie letter to ON3P for the potential brand name conflict. That's their job.

Anyway...if Scott Andrus wants support in his effort against Scott (Skis)...he's got my vote.

Never a dull moment in the ski industry...

By the way....every review I have read and every person I have talked to says Scott Andrus's ON3P skis just plain awesome. Period.
I am having a heck of time trying to get myself on a test pair since production is consumed immediately by rabid fans of his skis,
Check them out.

http://on3pskis.com/

#20

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 1:48pm

liv2 ski
offline

Joined: April 2008
Location: Coronado
Post Count: 217

I say Scott at ON3P opens a paypal acct for his legal defense. I will kick the small guy $5-$10 to hire a lawyer to tell Scott USA to STFU. $5 X 1000 mags and Bears,might just cover it. I am not buying the Scott poles I was looking at either.

#21

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 3:07pm

Rossi Smash
offline

Joined: March 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Post Count: 1,766

The TGR "regulars" that slum over here are, as always, predictable

#22

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 3:10pm

spindrift
online

Joined: March 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 3,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash

The TGR "regulars" that slum over here are, as always, predictable

And what, exactly, does this mean?

#23

Rating: 0

11/3/09 at 3:48pm

liv2 ski
offline

Joined: April 2008
Location: Coronado
Post Count: 217

Hey, I like slumming over here. You guys and gals are noice to play with.

#24

Rating: 0

11/4/09 at 3:53pm

Matthias99
offline

Joined: January 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Post Count: 327

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExoticSkis

I personally think a fellow named Scott Andrus (ON3P) can build and sell a ski with his own name on it.
He may choose to give it up to avoid a distracting and expensive adventure with attorneys and settlements, but like Rock Art Brewery fought Monster Energy Drink (Hansen Beverage) and eventually won the right to market their "Vermonster" beer, Scott Andrus might get great publicity and bump from David v. Goliath challenges like this.

(IANAL. Trademark law is complicated.)

There are limits to how much you can trademark a proper name. (I recall somewhat humorous cases involving McDonalds Corp. and various Scottish family-owned business, many of which had been in existence longer than McDs.) But in this case, the Scott family (of Scott Sports) would seem to have a better claim on the name in the context of sporting goods, since they have been in business for 50+ years and making skis for 10+ years.

Obviously, you're allowed to use your own name. I don't think there would be any problem if the ski was called the "Great Scott Andrus". When you use just "scott" in the context of sporting goods, a lot of people would probably associate that with Scott Sports and not ON3P. So there is definitely some possibility for confusion, which is one of the things that trademark protection is supposed to cover. Of course, ON3P can argue that "Great Scott!" is a common enough phrase that Scott Sports can't object to its use. Decisions like this are made on a case-by-case basis.

In any event, Scott at least has a somewhat legitimate complaint here -- and the way trademark law works, you sort of have to follow up on things like this or you can lose your trademark. Now... did they have to start in with the lawyers right away? Maybe not.

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Barking Bears Want

Any SCOTT USA employees on here?

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis