 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
pot kettle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
Is it worth Admin going through the pain and expense to litigate
|
Absolutely not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
The way the SKGB are going it could be a class action against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Anyone else think it is more than a remarkable coincidence that this appalling 'innocent error' of registering attempting to nick Snowheads brand for themselves, occurred on the same day SCGB sent me a letter giving me 7 days to hand them the keys to the Facebook group? |
No, because although we found out about it on the same day the actual trademark application looks to have been made on 3 August.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Without wishing in any way to defend the actions of the Ski Club, I think people are beginning to get a bit over-excited. There is no future in getting super-aggressive with them, better IMHO for admin quietly to protect his interests and then draw a line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Hurtle, I'd agree. Only winners for these sort of things are lawyers.
It would be nice for some truth and reconciliation because frankly Tony Harris's story stinks, but maybe that's just because he is an honest incompetent. I too have linked the interest in shutting down @ pisteoff's group with possible motivations on the TM (and I don't think they need to be contemporaneous).
Maybe they are totally independent events- it's still a big fail for the SCGB leadership being shown up for incompetence and aggression at a time when they should be fixing themselves for the benefit of members. Seems to me like another swirl closer to the plughole....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Without wishing in any way to defend the actions of the Ski Club, I think people are beginning to get a bit over-excited. There is no future in getting super-aggressive with them, better IMHO for admin quietly to protect his interests and then draw a line. |
+1. It's noticeable that admin has made no further comment since the bombshell post and I don't expect him to until the matter is resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Without wishing in any way to defend the actions of the Ski Club, I think people are beginning to get a bit over-excited. There is no future in getting super-aggressive with them, better IMHO for admin quietly to protect his interests and then draw a line. |
Whilst on the whole I agree, let's roll forward a few weeks if this hadn't been spotted. The sh's forum goes offline and there is technically no more community. You get abused for just having a snowheads buff/sticker etc. How annoyed/angry would you be then and who would that be directed at? Just because it didn't happen whether by luck/chance or something else doesn't mean we shouldn't feel a degree of contempt for the very underhand methods that have been employed by individuals or organisation. Not helped by the rather strange response of said individual claiming it was an error and politely offering to accept money to correct that supposed error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
You get abused for just having a snowheads buff/sticker etc. |
eh  . Abused, who by? That statement just proves Hurtle's point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
| You get abused for just having a snowheads buff/sticker etc |
Abuse from who and why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Red Leon wrote: |
| ansta1 wrote: |
| You get abused for just having a snowheads buff/sticker etc |
Abuse from who and why? |
I can certainly imagine at least one individual who would probably be quite happy to berate someone in public for using/wearing a trademark that's owned by the tea club. Can't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Why escalate a dispute with all kinds of over-imaginative 'what ifs'? Resolving the dispute amicably is so much easier. And cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, I'm not escalating any dispute. Admin is big enough and clever enough to sort this out now he is aware and I am sure he is doing that in the background in a manner that he feels the issue warrants.
I don't see people getting aggressive, just expressing their feelings on the underhand manner it happened, member they were potentially just 2 weeks from owning the snowheads trademark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Why escalate a dispute with all kinds of over-imaginative 'what ifs'? Resolving the dispute amicably is so much easier. And cheaper. |
This is where Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Lawyers are gold. The Club have publicly admitted liability. It is going to cost money to sort out (whether done amicably or not) and the Club are liable.
If I came round your house in the middle of the night and dug up the front lawn you'd be very upset. Having checked the CCTV and realised it was me on the way home from the pub, you'd probably just want me to put your lawn back exactly the way it was at my expense and move on. That's what an ADR Lawyer is looking to do. (By the way I don't do that kind of thing. Move gnomes around yes but not lawn digging)
So in this case an ADR Lawyer would contact the Club, point out that they have accepted liability for their errrrrrmmmmm 'error' and explain that a Trademark Lawyer needs to be brought in to professionally put things right - no more plucky amateurs please. It'll cost the club a few grand and @Admin should not be out of pocket.
The alternative to ADR is to treat the Club's actions as malicious, engage a litigator, and go after costs and damages - that's where it gets expensive for both sides and best avoided if possible IMV.
But a Director of The Ski Club of Great Britain has admitted liability so it is only right and proper that they put the lawn back the way they found it. But we all know they won't unless the legal stakes are raised somewhat.
| halfhand wrote: |
| It's noticeable that admin has made no further comment since the bombshell post and I don't expect him to until the matter is resolved. |
Yes, walk softly carry a big stick - the big stick is the admission of liability. He needs to Google ADR Lawyer and talk to one - that bit is free anyway!
| ansta1 wrote: |
| @Hurtle, I'm not escalating any dispute. |
The whole idea of an ADR Lawyer is to de-escalate the dispute and get a resolution without going anywhere near a court. It would likely involve non-disclosure on both sides, especially if some compensation is negotiated, and I suspect that would suit the Club down to the ground right now.
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Anyone else think it is more than a remarkable coincidence that this appalling 'innocent error' of registering attempting to nick Snowheads brand for themselves, occurred on the same day SCGB sent me a letter giving me 7 days to hand them the keys to the Facebook group? |
Others have mentioned the different timing but it is clear that Council have had enough and are seeking to censor any negative chat. They are on to a loser there. I think collectively they are totally out of their depths.
Do you know, I might rejoin just so I can go to the AGM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Hurtle, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
Without wishing in any way to defend the actions of the Ski Club, I think people are beginning to get a bit over-excited.
There is no future in getting super-aggressive with them, better IMHO for admin quietly to protect his interests and then draw a line. |
Obviously this site will be sorting out their issues and they're certainly not going it here or on Facebook or based on advice from snowboarders!
---
It's a forum, this is a topic of interest, that's all.
Here's why I think this latest incident is important.
- Gerald's activities against this site could have been disowned by SCGB Ltd. For all we know they may have taken
internal action to stop what was at best borderline legal behaviour. Their lawyers (who will be reading this)
would argue that snowheads moderators could always have stopped Gerald's abusive behaviour.
- A second SCGB Ltd director has just been caught attempting to take the name of this website.
That looks like a pattern of behaviour: the organisation appears to be acting collectively with intent to cause
damage to a competitor. I think that's why their lawyers will be excited.
As far as "drawing a line". Someone steals my snowboard, but I catch him in the act.
I take my board back, and he says "let's draw a line". That's not really the best way to
stop the guy continuing, is it?
The UK/EU term is "group litigation".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Don't mind me. I'm just...a lawyer. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@Hurtle, +2
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As of today, the gov website is saying that registration of that TM which included several variations of the term snowhead) is still in the initial exploration phase. The process it seems is that apparently, nothing much can be done by a 3rd party until it goes into the next phase which lasts a further 2 months, when objections can be raised.
So either the ski club let it go to the next phase and don't contest any objections, withdraw their applications. Or it will end with the lawyers. NB. I couldn't find out if you can withdraw your application during the exploration phase.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark/after-you-apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
I couldn't find out if you can withdraw your application during the exploration phase.
|
Google is wonderful, isn't it? This would seem to indicate you can, though it would require some more research/detailed verification. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-to-surrender-a-registration
If it were me, I would be prioritising this ie double-checking whether it was possible and then insisting the Ski Club did so, as the quickest route into a settlement (which should of course include any reasonable expenses admin has incurred.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Pruman,
| Quote: |
So in this case an ADR Lawyer would contact the Club, point out that they have accepted liability for their
So in this case an ADR Lawyer would contact the Club, point out that they have accepted liability for their errrrrrmmmmm 'error' and explain that a Trademark Lawyer needs to be brought in to professionally put things right - no more plucky amateurs please. It'll cost the club a few grand and @Admin should not be out of pocket.
The alternative to ADR is to treat the Club's actions as malicious, engage a litigator, and go after costs and damages - that's where it gets expensive for both sides and best avoided if possible IMV.
But a Director of The Ski Club of Great Britain has admitted liability so it is only right and proper that they put the lawn back the way they found it.
|
Yep, I don't disagree with any of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, I'm sure you looked at that document (which I had already looked at by the way) it explicitly states not be used if it the TM is not yet registered and you have to contact them directly but doesn't actually say you can withdraw an application as I am sure that is what you were referring to re double checking.
That may have been done, it may not, we'll find out in a couple of weeks if it moves to the next phase I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
it explicitly states not be used if it the TM is not yet registered and you have to contact them directly but doesn't actually say you can withdraw an application as I am sure that is what you were referring to re double checking
|
Yes, but common sense dictates that they probably wouldn't be inviting contact if such contact were completely futile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
it explicitly states not be used if it the TM is not yet registered and you have to contact them directly but doesn't actually say you can withdraw an application as I am sure that is what you were referring to re double checking
|
Yes, but common sense dictates that they probably wouldn't be inviting contact if such contact were completely futile. |
I'd absolutely agree with you on that, the question i'd ask is 'why you can't just withdraw'. My common sense tells me that you can't because they want to discuss why you want to withdraw it and potentially there are implications (financial or otherwise) to that process.
If the costs to register (assuming no challenges are in propgress) are fixed, then it seems simple to me that if there were no possible complexities in terms if withdrawing an application then that would be an option available by the applicant registering.
So I surmise that the registrant in this case is going to have to justify/pay to withdraw at the exploration phase or let it go to the next phase and then not argue with any objections and let it die in a ditch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
So I surmise that the registrant in this case is going to have to justify/pay to withdraw at the exploration phase or let it go to the next phase and then not argue with any objections and let it die in a ditch.
|
Yes, but admin needs advice on which is the safer option for him. Withdrawing (if possible) 'feels' safer to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Hurtle, yes, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the registrant in question already has an idea of what's involved hence the request for payment to allow said person to transfer the ownership after registration.
Happy to continue discussing, happy to leave it there, ultimately it's admin's fight and I am sure he knows the best approach or is at least actively looking in to it.
I don't think this is going to end cleanly or amicably either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, as I mentioned previously, there would need to be a legally binding agreement that if they were to proceed to completion of the TM (assuming that is nobody else objected).
Now I'm not a lawyer, but I assume a legally binding agreement would require lawyers to draft etc. otherwise you're back with the lawyers to argue over "I've got an email saying they would do x and y and this time or that"
If I was admin I'd just be asking for them to withdraw it at their cost/pain before it goes to the next phase, suck up a bit of time and effort on my part, then register the TM as soon as it once again became free.
(Though nothing stopping them objecting to that request out of spite of course, which I wouldn't rule out given previous history).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
Yes, but admin needs advice on which is the safer option for him. Withdrawing (if possible) 'feels' safer to me. |
That's what the pope recommends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@davidof, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@ansta1,
| Quote: |
I'd just be asking for them to withdraw it at their cost/pain before it goes to the next phase, suck up a bit of time and effort on my part, then register the TM as soon as it once again became free
|
Yes, instinctively (I am a lawyer, but don't know much about intellectual property) I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
There is a clear choice. Act to register Snowheads™ and SnowHeads™ as a trademark - or don't.
If you don't register it, then anyone can come along at a later date, register it for themselves, and demand cessation of its use by this forum, or a charge for its use, or acquisition.
There's no point in any 'gentleman's agreement'. It's what's legal that matters. Predatory acquisition of trademarks and URLs is a perfectly sound business strategy and a common occurrence as a method of competition, and/or income generation.
The best approach for any internet B2C organisation is to assume that what can be done, will be done. So if the trademark and variant Snowheads URLs aren't acquired by Snowheads, then assume that someone else will do so. The best strategy to obivate this is to acquire them for Snowheads. Otherwise, don't be surprised if the forum gets shut down by someone - entirely legally - demanding cessation or £££s for acquisition/use: for something that can be acquired for a relatively small cost now.
This is nothing exclusively to do with SCGB. A clothing manufacturer could so the same thing - decide to launch a winter fashion line, look at the available URLs and trademarks, and decide on 'Snowheads'; register it as a ™; grab the free URLs; and serve the forum with notice of infringement. Ditto a winter sports equipment manufacturer. So, tedious though it may be, it seems simply good practice to register the name.
Moreover, if you were forced to re-brand Snowheads as something else, you'd still be faced with the same problem: given you'd be choosing a funky snow-related name of some sort, unless you ™ the name and grab the variant URLs, you could end up in exactly the same situation all over again.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sat 25-09-21 14:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@LaForet,
Absolutely correct apart from the bit around the statement from the person registering indicating that he knew nothing about snowheads or assumed it was already part of the SCGB group of assets/forums etc.
Of course as other have previously mentioned he could genuinely have known that this was not the case or he could have known that this was the case and was trying his luck.
Only time will decide that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@LaForet, just to add, admin can't actually register it as it's currently under examination phase at the request of the SCGB....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
In which case I think that @admin needs the advice of a patent, trademark and intellectual property attorney. If he wants to PM me, I have a relative who is one and who is a Partner in a major firm. Although this is probably the sort of thing that could easily be handled by a junior. I know from my relative that there are a lot of misconceptions about the whole area, and perhaps it's the time to seek informed professional advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
If you don't register it, then anyone can come along at a later date, register it for themselves, and demand cessation of its use by this forum, or a charge for its use, or acquisition.
|
This explicitly contradicts what I have been advised in the past. Ownership and registration are not the same thing, you choose whether to register something you own. If you don't register a trademark you own, it is not available for others to take, but they can claim ignorance and use it unknowingly. This can be helped by marking the use of a trademark with the term (TM). (as opposed to (R))
It is clear (to all of us her at least) that the snowheads trademark is owned by this forum, therefore @admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
| Quote: |
If you don't register it, then anyone can come along at a later date, register it for themselves, and demand cessation of its use by this forum, or a charge for its use, or acquisition.
|
This explicitly contradicts what I have been advised in the past. |
Well you know what they say about free legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Red Leon,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pisteoff wrote: |
| This explicitly contradicts what I have been advised in the past. |
Me too.
I'd actually come across this case [1] before. I can't quite remember why, but the name "Caspian" stuck in my mind.
That short read illustrates use of 5(4)(a) of the TMA[2] and specifically the "passing off" issue I mentioned earlier.
In that case a company "accidentally" registered a brand already in use, subsequently tried to enforce it against
those with prior use, and failed. The conclusion is clear and simple.
@Hurtle, the losing side there agreed with your professional expertise in this, but they still lost.
Why do you think this isn't how the TMA works in practice, please?
---
[1] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/challenging-the-validity-of-a-trade-mark/5063949.article
[2] trade Mark Act 1994 Section 5 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
