Nice one Specialized!

Not cool.

I read about this yesterday. This is just another example of a retail giant flexing their muscles on a small business owner. Give the guy a break.
 
ebineezer said:
I read about this yesterday. This is just another example of a retail giant flexing their muscles on a small business owner. Give the guy a break.
Click to expand...

I understand the point that Specialized owns the trademark and will give it up if they don't enforce it. But it is a shop in Canada not another road bike model. Why not give permission to use the trademark. IDK, I'm not a roadie but to trademark the name Roubaix in the first place seems kinda lame.

Just seems to be a weak move by Specialized on how it was handled.
 
Yes indeed, how can you trademark a city name? Maybe the city should sue Specialized. I understand the law , and they must defend there trademark however lame it may be . I have never owned a bike from them and most likely will never own one now.
 
kidzach said:
Yes indeed, how can you trademark a city name? Maybe the city should sue Specialized. I understand the law , and they must defend there trademark however lame it may be . I have never owned a bike from them and most likely will never own one now.
Click to expand...

they could license their IP for $1 (as Don suggested)....with all the needed caveats (ie no using the bike in their marketing without approval)
 
Nothing unusual about using a city or place name as a trademark (Hyundai Santa Fe, Pontiac Bonneville, Chevy Tahoe). There's some truth to the issue of being legally required to defend your trademark. Apparently, if you don't enforce it or enforce it inconsistently, it can be used against you in future trademark disputes.

Not sure if this is a factor, but apparently Specialized owns the trademark for Roubaix in Canada, but not the US. I read, but couldn't confirm, that Fuji Bicycles owns it in the US. Fuji does, in fact have a road model called Roubaix: http://www.fujibikes.com/bike/details/roubaix-11

I found this list of other bike-related products that use the Roubaix name:
Endura Roubaix gloves, jackets
Tifosi Roubaix glasses
Castelli Roubaix gloves
Fuji Roubaix bike
Challenge Roubaix tire
Veloflex Roubaix tire
Capo- whole line of Roubaix clothes
DeMarchi Roubaix clothes
MEC Roubaix tights
VCC Roubaix knee warmers

I don't know enough to pass judgement myself, but it sure makes Specialized look bad. For a good laugh, take a look at their FB page. It's plastered with negative comments and links to stories about the guy.
 
From my limited knowledge of trademark law, its use would have to confuse people about who's product it is. If the guy was selling a bike named roubaix(like other companies do) and could use the likeness of specialized to make money they have a case. I don't see how this is confusing people at all. Like has been stated above planty of other brands have items w/ the same name, they may be battling a lawsuit as well but it clearly hasn't stopped them. Maybe because they're bigger than this small business owner and can afford to fight it. There also may be more to the story but at this point specialized has some PR problems... i don't know, i'm no patent attorney but this seems f'd up.

BTW their Facebook feed is a circus, its comical.
 
As as shop owner I see the value that modern social media has added to this story.

This shop now has over 8k fans on FB https://www.facebook.com/CafeRoubaix

He did have the words Roubaix on his wheels, and the minute I saw that I was sure that "S" had merit here.

That being said the countless 100's of FUs to Spec on their FB page and every other online media page says a lot about the bruising they are taking on this.

I was mostly taken back by the time it has taken for them to edit their own FB page after people are totally gutting them.

Perhaps they need to be more careful about who and how they sue people going forward...:hmmm:
 
Unfortunately in order to maintain a trademark, the way the court system is set up, my understanding is a company almost "has" to sue in order to maintain the trademark, unless they grant a usage license to another company for use. Someone with law knowledge correct me if I'm wrong.

So in order for Specialized to maintain their protected trademark, they "had" to do this. It sucks but it's the way out patent/trademark law works.
 
Yup, see how Ford lost gt40 and futura and started going after people using mustang in their company name. You have to actively maintain your trademarks or lose them
 
JMartz said:
It's time to abolish patents and trademarks. Let the best product win. Prices will drop, people will be happy. Look at drug companies. Generics are half the price but until generics come out people die because they can't afford the drugs. The whole thing is a disgrace.

Oh and I was looking at buying a used Camber, but probably wont now.
Click to expand...

wrong. wrong. wrong.

if people/ companies cant be assured that their innovations/ intellectual property wont be protected, then the motivation to invent and innovate would be significantly eroded.

if I thought of some great new gadget, I'd have no motivation to INVEST in it if there was NO PROTECTION from someone else coming along and just stealing it from me.

trademarks, patents, etc. are vital components of a free, capitalist society.

unfortunately no system is perfect. and in this case, it seems Specialized is basically forced to sue the guy to protect its trademark.

you want to talk about fairness... let's say you devote YEARS and mucho $$$$ inventing and investing in some product... you call it the "JMartz Machine" and then someone comes in and copies the exact product and calls it the "JMarts Machine" selling it for a fraction of the price ...would that be fair to you?

and if you knew there was no patent or trademark protection from the beginning (your suggestion), what motivation would you possibly have to invest and innovate in the first place?
 
Last edited:
JMartz said:
It's time to abolish patents and trademarks. Let the best product win. Prices will drop, people will be happy. Look at drug companies. Generics are half the price but until generics come out people die because they can't afford the drugs. The whole thing is a disgrace.

Oh and I was looking at buying a used Camber, but probably wont now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with Mark on this one. And I know it's everybody's favorite industry to beat on when it comes to healthcare costs, but you're actually way off on your pharma example. The costs of development are what drive drug costs, much of which is driven by an FDA that is now perpetually operating in CYA mode so the cost to bring a new therapy to market now is increasing exponentially and eventually it's going to force innovation into places you don't want it happening -- places beyond the reach of FDA regulation. In fact, it's already happening. You want to be frightened about the state of drug production when you let it go to places without any enforceable regulaitons? Look up a company called Ranbaxy. That's the problem with wide open generic markets. The costs of bringing a product to market are already prohibitive, and if you took away the protection of trademarks and patents, there would be no motivation for companies to do novel research. And that's what you end up with.

That said, this issue with Specialized is another story altogether. It's about common sense. A trademark like the one they have is designed to protect their interests where the association can be made that impedes their business. What happened here is not that. People who see a shop called Roubaix are not going to associate it with the bike model Roubaix. It would be a totally different thing if this guy was a frame builder designing frames and claling them "Roubaix" -- that would be a violation of the trademark. But a swhole shop name? That's Specialized being unreasonable (and the irony is that their effort to protect their brand is actually hurting it.)
 
1speed said:
That said, this issue with Specialized is another story altogether. It's about common sense. A trademark like the one they have is designed to protect their interests where the association can be made that impedes their business. What happened here is not that. People who see a shop called Roubaix are not going to associate it with the bike model Roubaix. It would be a totally different thing if this guy was a frame builder designing frames and claling them "Roubaix" -- that would be a violation of the trademark.
Click to expand...

dont disagree with this.

plus you throw in the fact that "Roubaix" is the name of a city/ region in France (not some specific unique model name Specialized just came up with) and a term that is commonly known in the cycling community (way "above and beyond" any particular bike model or bike shop). makes the protection of the term "Roubaix" seem a bit of a stretch.

e.g., can "Manhattan Bagels" own the word "Manhattan". and if so, can they sue another business if they dare use the word "Manhattan"? unless they bascially steal their business model, decor, sell coffee, etc. and simply call themselves "Manhattan Donuts", the use of the word "Manhattan" should not necessarily be protected.

granted with this "Roubaix" situation, they are generally in the same business, so..... again, not so clear cut.

but as I said above, no system is perfect. but doing away with the system (which again is a critical component of an open capitalist society) altogether is certainly not the answer.

is Specialized going a little overboard here?...maybe.

but are they basically forced to do so due to the way the laws are written? ...does anyone here know the laws well enough to even comment intelligently? I dont.
 
Last edited:
JMartz said:
It's time to abolish patents and trademarks. Let the best product win. Prices will drop, people will be happy. Look at drug companies. Generics are half the price but until generics come out people die because they can't afford the drugs. The whole thing is a disgrace.

Oh and I was looking at buying a used Camber, but probably wont now.
Click to expand...

Let me simplify this so you understand. All of the risk in drug development is taken by the innovator, the generics take very little of it. Drugs are expensive to make. A typical end-to-end (discovery through registration) program can cost around $500M, and most of the majors have at least 10-15 major programs in play at once, with only 1-2 every making it through registration. You can put the evil pharma companies out of business, but then we can also go back to dying of sore throats and infected cuts.
 
"overboard" is the issue.

The big guy isn't supposed to pick on the little guy, other than
- sending the cease and desist letter.

it should then go....

local bike shop owner says,
-will not use the name on the wheels.

S responds
- accept +
- our accessories on main in-store display
- may not use our bike in advertising without permission
- owe us $1xx/yr licensing fee

LBS
- supply display
- done

S
- done

How hard is that??? The licensing fee can be commensurate with size of the business/use/exposure.....could probably argue either way that the use of the name in the industry is already generic (this isn't the right legal word - it is the reason velcro wants to refer to their product as hook&loop not velcro, and asprin lost their tm battle)

as mentioned, there are many products/companies that use their city as their primary name (ie Pontiac)
 
Medical industry is not a great example, because the main risk is the legal remedies to injured users of the product (ie fen-phen) (even if they had no other choice) - otherwise they could keep their formulas secret (well sort of, minimally the production process) , prove they work, and never patent them (ie coke) .

only trademarking the name (which they do also)

One landmark case in this area is Miller, taking a common word, then attacking other companies for using the word lite in naming their beer. resulting in ruling on what it was describing (color, alc content, calories, carbs, taste,...)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom