Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys | Hacker News Reader

Backcountry.com Fires Trademark Attorneys

coloradosun.com

63 pointsbeningrad19 comments

> Nielsen, while saying “everything is on hold,” stopped short of promising to terminate the petitions for cancellation the company’s IPLA attorney John Kim filed with the USPTO. Nielsen said he would be reaching out to every business targeted in those petitions to discuss how they can work together.

So, they still think they own the generic term "backcountry" and that others need their permission to use it. Nothing has changed.

Had a friend who worked there. Worst experience of his life. If you aren’t drinking the Jonestown Flavor-Aid, you’re not one of them.

Too little too late. Been munching on popcorn watching all my camping and hiking forums and communities coming together saying they are done buying from them.

I thought this was a pretty solid response. Out of curiosity, is there anything that you think is "enough" to change your mind?

Abandon the trademark on such a broad name.

Not OP, but dropping all trademark enforcement attempts on the generic term "backcountry" would be the minimum (them using "backcountry.com" should have been as far as they got).

Also, abandon all existing legal action based on that generic term.

Abandon all claims, compensate those already affected, and force the CEO to tender his resignation.

It seems like a legitimate start. IANAL but you do have to defend your trademark or risk losing it. This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

> This is an inherent danger of using a common word in a trademark...

You shouldn't be able to trademark a common word in the first place. It's literary colonialism.

Trademarks need to be limited to being consumer protection: A company can only own a word or design or color scheme to the extent it prevents bad actors from fooling customers with deceptively similar names and trade dress. This has the positive side-effect of preventing those same bad actors from harming the company which owns the trademark, but that should be seen as a side-effect, and not as the primary purpose of trademarks.

Ford, Apple, Sharp, Adobe, National, Amazon, Sun, Oracle, etc. all are generic terms.

However, if you look at the trademarks themselves, they have very limited scope and also require specific visual differentiators. The word "Adobe" isn't trademarked, but so that I don't buy the wrong Adobe which is actually malware, it is illegal to advertise or commercially distribute creative digital software bearing the name Adobe and copying its visual likeness. But I could start my own Spanish-themed footwear company called Adobe Footwear. Adobe itself is not trademarked.

I don't think any of these are from generic terms from within their trade.

Those trademarks only apply in certain markets. That's why for example, you also have Ford Models and Apple Vacations.

lol. Not buying it.

Seems like someone got fired for letting it come to public view and not so much what they did when filing these complaints.

But the company isn’t withdrawing 50+ requests that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancel the trademarks of other companies, Backcountry.com CEO Jonathan Nielsen said in an interview with The Sun.

Do I even need to read the rest of the article?

What are you not buying? That it was bad marketing?

There are no underlying emotions its a big company driven by money. The only thing you can buy is that they said the thing they did publicly. Now they might align their business with that statement for a while.

Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com