 Poster: A snowHead
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
@Fat George,
The first 40 days . . . . |
Cheery news (edit: my error: ironically, I got the wrong idea from reading what T Harris said  ) but isn't it up-to-40-days as below, not the first 40 days? They could proceed to the next stage in less than 40 days, so could be anytime. Phew(ish). Coincidentally, I just found this on gov website:
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 27-09-21 16:01; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
IMO it's astonishing that a director of SCGB thinks that Snowheads is part of the SCGB. So either
1) There are directors who are quite astoundingly ill-informed about their target market or
2) It's a sneaky try at getting hold of Snowheads name.
Either way, it doesn't show the leadership of SCGB in a good light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@eblunt,
I'm certainly speaking for others view on this and happy to be corrected by others but I think the current view is that
Option 2 is the most likely at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| IMO it's astonishing that a director of SCGB thinks that Snowheads is part of the SCGB. |
None of them think that and I don't think there is anyone here who believes the 'it was an error guv, honest' story given by Trademark Tony. I also think it best to assume that this strategy would have been discussed by Council or by an inner clique of Council members.
I'd love to see a few heads rolling, although of course it'll be presented as 'so-and-so has decided to step down due to other commitments'.
It's funny, they got rid of Goldsmith for simply pointing out the truth (the environmental fund is another scandal IMO), and they got rid of @Pisteoff for the crime of being a bit passionate about his job on the Council and making @Gerry wet his bed. Attempted trademark theft is a whole magnitude of reputational damage worse but I bet its quietly forgotten.
Importantly - (a) the subterfuge was spotted and (b) the moral high ground has been secured.
Quite soon we will have the pleasure of pouring over the Club's Report & Accounts - will Trademarkgate get a mention? How many members are left? Is it true some have been cryogenically frozen to make the numbers look better? How much money has been spaffed?
Latest 'News' on the club website - 18th August, an insurance update - because, obviously, there has been nothing ski related to talk about since. Events page unchanged, bereft of activity, even though there is a Chemmy evening at Hemel tomorrow night - anyone going? Perhaps a word in Chemmy's ear - does the Hon. President really want to be associated with all of the above?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Pruman ^What time at Hemel, in case there's anyone who wanted to happen to roll up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Ample opportunity to whisper in Chemmy's ear @Pruman, @Fat George, perhaps a peaceful protest?
Date: Tues 28th Sept
Location: The Snow Centre, Hemel Hempstead
Group 1: 10-12pm (mixed session, early intermediate and above) (I suspect this means 10am-12 noon
Group 2: 1-3pm (women's only session, all abilities welcome)
Group 3: 4-6pm (mixed session, early intermediate and above)
Spaces are extremely limited and will be offered on a first come, first served basis. Each space costs £36, and will include access to The Snow Centre, your 2hr lift pass, and refreshments after the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Ample opportunity to whisper in Chemmy's ear @Pruman, @Fat George, perhaps a peaceful protest?
|
Perhaps not the best time, i.e. while she’s working and teaching others.
Besides, I can’t believe she’s a pro skier…I’m sooo much better than her. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fat George wrote: |
| Jehu wrote: |
| . . . said he knew nothing but was hoping to find out at a Council meeting on Thursday . . . |
Interesting timing;
- application to trademark on 3rd August;
- Thursday 30th September for a bit of chat, a whole 3 days in the future at this point;
- the last date for anyone to lodge any objections to the trademark application being a whole 3 days later than that, only one being a weekday.
I wonder if the three dates might be related in some way
How could anything possibly go wrong? |
Just to be clear, the Council meeting was on Thursday 23rd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
^Ta.
er . . . but wasn’t that the day @admin found out about the application? Was the trademark thing being discussed on Fbk before we found out about it here then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fat George
Not sure which came first, but there was nothing before 23rd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Something about this time line is odd.
Was Gerry's first comment before or after @Admin became aware of this issue and informed us? which was just after 2am.
Presumably he made contact with SCGB as soon as possible when they opened for business?
Was it just a coincidence that a meeting was scheduled to take place on the same day, or was it hastily arranged because the proverbial had hit the fan?
If the meeting was indeed last Thursday (23rd), what comments, if any has Gerry made since? It would be quite unusual by all accounts for him to remain silent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@brianatab, I think you are getting a bit worked up on the detective work with incomplete facts.
It's entirely possible that SCGB Council had a prearranged zoom call on Thursday with agenda items to include the progress of their legal actions against @pisteoff's facebook group (& perhaps their wizzard wheeze to steal the snowheads name).
Re the latter it's still possible that Tony Harris is a wide-eyed innocent in all this if perhaps not quite bright enough to protect his own reputation - let's say an SCGB director with a known and very public grudge against sH members says privately to him, "While you're trademarking those SCGB names make sure you include variants of snowheads. Yep don't worry it's one of ours."
I suspect the truth will never entirely out. Disappointing for the true crime fans who seek resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would certainly be interesting to hear a response from Gerry, if he's not been gagged by Council. As their (self-?) appointed patroller of Snowheads, I have no doubt that even now he logs in at least once per day to report back on what we are saying about them. It's like the days of having your anti-social neighbour working for the Stasi 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Coincidentally, I got an email today from SCGB about La Plagne, which was entirely uninteresting apart from their email name:
The TM seems new to me, or it could just be that I've not noticed it before and now I'm more sensitive to it.
The TM mark says that they consider it to be a trademark, but that it is unregistered. I suspect the reason it is unregistered is that they'd never be allowed to register something so generic - imagine if the LTA were granted a trademark for "Tennis club", or the BMC a trademark for "Climbing club" - there would be uproar, especially if they then decided to issue legal threats to anyone using the term.
More delusions of grandeur?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Yep - extremely arrogant of them to think they "own" the words "Ski Club" used by thousands of organisations across the world. Just cos they call themselves THE Ski Club doesn't make it so. I'd hope the IPO kicks their back bottom on that.
Maybe it's a cunning plan in the light of falling membership subs - revenue stream of suing every legit and humble ski club around the world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I thought it was quite arrogant to offer not to charge for the time they spent trying to pilfer the Snowheads name ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Oh well it's evidence of SCGB focusing on completely the wrong thing for the members. Do members really care that the name is trademarked and "protected"? Maybe they do and they chose to join a petty little club for the bullying of other parties involved in snowsports in some way. Strange way to get their kicks though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
arrogant of them to think they "own" the words "Ski Club" used by thousands of organisations across the world.
|
I would imagine that the National governing bodies for snowsport may have a view on that issue as well 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| I thought it was quite arrogant to offer not to charge for the time they spent trying to pilfer the Snowheads name .... |
Angelic investors work in mysterious ways. Your mere mortal mind has no comprehension of the decades of education and experience that it takes to reach this level of attention to detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@ousekjarr, they were definitely using the TM logo as far back as May in their emails (furthest I can be bothered to go back right now).
For clarity I'm not nor ever have been a member the club, they just like to send me emails.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Well, if you're annoyed that SCGB Ltd would apparently plan to pass themselves off as "snow heads",
you will have no trouble understanding how they'd feel if, for example, someone labelled this place as "ski club 2.0".
SCGB Ltd allowed this forum to take away something they dearly wanted, and now they can't get it back.
I think they felt humiliated by that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone can dob the skiclub reps in it for working without a visa this winter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
Well, if you're annoyed that SCGB Ltd would apparently plan to pass themselves off as "snow heads",
you will have no trouble understanding how they'd feel if, for example, someone labelled this place as "ski club 2.0".
SCGB Ltd allowed this forum to take away something they dearly wanted, and now they can't get it back.
I think they felt humiliated by that. |
Well some years ago at the very same time that the SCGB contacted admin with lawyers' letters complaining about his use of the term ski club 2.0 and threatening legal action over it their website said that the term "Ski Club of Great Britain" was owned/ protected/copyright (I can't remember the exact words used) but also explicitly said (unsurprisingly) that the term "ski club" was not. Go figure as they say.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@philwig, as a relative newcomer (2007  ) who missed all of the fun and games in 2004 when Snowheads started, SCGB did not allow Snowheads to take away something they dearly wanted. SCGB rejected an entire community and locked them out of their forum because they weren't members - they were clearly told that they weren't wanted, and without warning were ejected from a forum they'd (in some cases) invested a lot of time and effort into.
They can't get it back because even now they're still dinosaurs trying to adapt to a new world, and it's looking like extinction is on the cards. They're not agile, technically capable, or competent - and they failed to grasp the opportunity they had, then instead of admitting they made a mistake they doubled down and squashed any sign of dissent, and continue to try to do so. They're doomed...
And they should feel humiliated by that - it was the equivalent of shooting themselves in both feet, and it immediately caused a great deal of bad feeling in a small group who were then able to organise and rebuild something which in retrospect has probably turned out to be at least as good, if not better.
Is this "Ski Club 2.0"? No. It was a borderline joke at the time, and has probably outlived its target and punchline, and there would be no harm in retiring it. Is it even a club? Maybe - it has paid members, and it organises bashes, but maybe 90% of the accounts registered are not paid members, and it remains open to anyone, so I'd see it more as a public park with a cafe in the middle. You can come and have a picnic, or you can pay for tea and cake off paper plates, and if someone is organising a game of rounders, anyone in the park can join in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
Well, if you're annoyed that SCGB Ltd would apparently plan to pass themselves off as "snow heads",
you will have no trouble understanding how they'd feel if, for example, someone labelled this place as "ski club 2.0".
SCGB Ltd allowed this forum to take away something they dearly wanted, and now they can't get it back.
I think they felt humiliated by that. |
Some might say SCGB deliberately pushed away non-members therefore losing a source of potential convertees.
Then they are surprised that a rag tag bunch of longhairs, potty mouths, jokers and clowns from all backgrounds can get along surprisingly well on an entirely peer to peer basis (well with some gentle steering of the ship from admin) to the extent that British skiers looking to join a social group skiing without too much nursemaiding might find a sH bash perfectly acceptable.
I'm not sure they ever wanted "social" - they wanted a controllable channel where drones never questioned the hierarchy because that would be "disloyal". And social with enough impetus means that people are equipped to bypass nanny's teat/freshtracks tax. My perception is that admin while he grafts very hard at making this place what it is and putting members together IRL, isn't in the slightest bit interested in being "boss" of it. Of course that means he ends up with a fair amount of stress like handling snowmaggeddon to everyone's satisfaction or dealing with the occasionally bash stroppeo or mayhemeo.
Very different things. It's clear that to the average open minded skier it matters not a jot whether they go on a sH bash or a Freshtracks hol - they'll get good company and access to good instructors guides. The only difference is really the pricing paradigm and the vibe. For some though it would very much be a mistake to end up on the wrong trip (and I think that cuts both ways - I'd be unhappy on a Freshtracks hol if everyone else cared about the creds of how many Freshtracks hols you'd been on, with who and the colour of your ribbon).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
Is this "Ski Club 2.0"? No. It was a borderline joke at the time. |
it wasn't a joke, it was designed "to get up the ski club of GB's nose" and it, along with the various threads slagging the ski club off / pointing out the realities of the world, has clearly worked very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| philwig wrote: |
Well, if you're annoyed that SCGB Ltd would apparently plan to pass themselves off as "snow heads",
you will have no trouble understanding how they'd feel if, for example, someone labelled this place as "ski club 2.0". |
I think Alastair Pink answers this adequately above. In any case, we are quite obviously labelled as “Snowheads”, not the more generic “ski club”.
| philwig wrote: |
SCGB Ltd allowed this forum to take away something they dearly wanted, and now they can't get it back.
I think they felt humiliated by that. |
“Allowed”?!
History seems to be against you on that. It was SCGB Ltd who threw away something they didn’t want (non-members using their forum) and they (well, at least 1 member) seem to be bitter about the success of this place. I wonder who was involved in that decision?
Compound that success with SCGB’s decline and you have a very convenient scapegoat and a distraction from solving seemingly very real problems within the SCGB.
I wonder if any bad news is being buried by Trademarkgate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're misinterpreting my words and I'm afraid you missed my point completely.
I'm sorry if this isn't your first language, but you can't take a word like "allowed" out of the
context it's used in and expect to get much meaning from it, as you just demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@philwig, if @AL9000, has taken you "allowed" out of context then so has everyone else who's responded to your post, so I'd suggest that you need to be clearer in the context you use it in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@philwig, whatever you meant by "allowed", it remains the case that SCGB showed a significant number of people the door, and told them they weren't wanted. You could say they passively watched while this community grew, or that they gritted their teeth and hoped it would fizzle out quickly, or that they shrugged with a lack of concern and moved on saying "good riddance", but whichever it was, it was their decision and there were other options open to them both at the time and subsequently.
If that was humiliating, it is only because it was a gross error of judgement. A rare thing for the SCGB?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ousekjarr® wrote: |
| The TM seems new to me, or it could just be that I've not noticed it before and now I'm more sensitive to it. |
There is also an ® next to the logo on the website which wasn't there before either. This is a club with a new-found identity crisis. So who are they?:
Ski Club TM
The Ski Club
The Tea Club
SCGB
SKGB
Ski Club of Great Britain
SKI CLUB Great Britain ®
After 118 years they still can't decide on one clear version of themselves. I seem to remember an agency copped a six figure sum for the latest logo style, so you'd think they'd try and be consistent with its usage.
| Dave ® of the Marmottes ® wrote: |
| Oh well it's evidence of SCGB focusing on completely the wrong thing for the members. Do members really care that the name is trademarked and "protected"? Maybe they do and they chose to join a petty little club for the bullying of other parties involved in snowsports in some way. Strange way to get their kicks though. |
Yes, it is surprising that they are concentrating on the small stuff (their brand isn't in any danger!) when they present no compelling reasons to join or remain a member. Getting their merino undies in a twist over trademarking when they are running away from the big stuff, suggests they are all out of confidence and ideas.
In the last annual report (with no ® next to the logo by the way) they claim 22,146 Members. 2017 it was just short of 28,000. They have lost over 20% of the membership in 3 short years ( and that's pre Covid numbers). I wonder if anyone can guess what the number will be in the 2021 Report & Accounts. I would think well below 20,000. Maybe 15,000? This in a generally-accepted UK ski market of 1,000,000 skiers although the Ski Club claimed it was 1.4 million a few years back - so the Club has a market share of somewhere between 1.5 and 2% depending on what numbers you use and depending how bad the current membership tally is**. So why worry about the minutiae? What are they actually trying to protect? It's purely diversionary IMO, people running around the building with bits of paper heading for another meeting with Tarquin, rather than getting on with the hard yards required to turn the business around. I know, let's blame the ex CEO or those forum bash scruffs.
Possibly the most impactful branding The Club® has ever had was the blue Rep's® jacket®. Photographed on a blue bird day on snow®, surrounded by happy Members®, it told the story and must have made people think "I could do with some of that"® but that's gone now too. It's over®.
** actually it is worse than that, the claimed membership numbers include family members, many of whom aren't aware they are members®.
| ansta1® wrote: |
@ousekjarr®, they were definitely using the TM logo as far back as May in their emails (furthest I can be bothered to go back right now).
For clarity I'm not nor ever have been a member the club, they just like to send me emails..... |
Yeah, same here, emails with no specific offer or call to action. They really are effin' useless ®
There is no point putting TM on The Ski Club when they already have a trademark registration for their actual proper name/logo.
| davidof® wrote: |
| Maybe someone can dob the skiclub reps in it for working without a visa this winter? |
I think that is inevitable - probably somewhere around 4th to 11th December in the French Alps - Tignes maybe? Just a wild guess. 
By the way: https://www.skiclub.co.uk/news/ski-club-news/2020/08/ski-club-agm-notice-2020 - Come on, who wants to be Chairman or a Director?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Pruman wrote: |
Yes, it is surprising that they are concentrating on the small stuff (their brand isn't in any danger!) when they present no compelling reasons to join or remain a member. Getting their merino undies in a twist over trademarking when they are running away from the big stuff, suggests they are all out of confidence and ideas.
|
Maybe they are not as daft as they seem and despite an approaching defunct business model they realise they have value in their name and are trying to secure it to have something to flog on at the end? To what end though? We keep being told they are a members' club not a business so what's the point in pulling in cash once you've gone below the number of members to make yourself viable? That thinking would lead you to there being someone possibly positioning for there to be a nice little privately held business to be had being a TO under the SCGB name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
nice little privately held business
|
Where angels don’t fear to tread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, Flogging the name will put a last few buckets of swill into the trough, and pay for a last few bits of salary for doing nothing and a few last freebies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, Flogging the name will put a last few buckets of swill into the trough, and pay for a last few bits of salary for doing nothing and a few last freebies. |
Well quite - but perhaps the SCGB council might be honest enough to explain that is their strategy of last resort (for the good of all members), or not, given their stellar record of member comms.
Or perhaps they could present another strategy where it becomes important - Perhaps SCGB merch is set to take off in the Far East like Premier League football shirts or Google are about to licence the name to attach to weather forecasts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @Dave of the Marmottes, Flogging the name will put a last few buckets of swill into the trough, and pay for a last few bits of salary for doing nothing and a few last freebies. |
Apart from getting money out of @admin to transfer the marknot really likely I'd suspect and I don't think @admin should or will be paying one red cent, but that's his call.
@admin is quiet, no doubt he's setting up @skiheads as an alternative just in case as TM according to gov.uk is still in examination phase, by my calculations it should have moved to next phase today, but as of yet hasn't and hasn't officially been withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ansta1, I'm talking about the various TMing of variants of SCGB, Ski Club etc NOT sHs.
And I don't think admin would be in the market for SCGBtm except as an ironic joke when they are finally tired and shagged out after their last squawk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ansta1, if Trademark Tony's assurances are of merit, it should lapse to 'Withdrawn' status on 4th Oct. According to my discussion with the IPO this is indeed plausible, so for now, we can just sit back and enjoy the tranquility of the moment and hope that this is not the calm before the storm 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, it may be the stuff of myth and legend, but there are stories that tell of a time when SCGB.co.uk led, ironically, to the home page of The Spacehopper Club of Great Britain, whoever they were
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@admin, good news. I would seriously consider registering "Snowheads" as a trade mark. It puts you in a far stronger position than if you only have unregistered rights (I am a patent attorney who has done some work in trade marks over the years). You could engage a trade mark attorney to do it, or DIY. Anyways, you should be able to get some initial advice free off any trade mark attorney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
