 Poster: A snowHead
|
| philwig wrote: |
| TUI's brand history is worth a look, and suggests that the value of package-holiday retail brands isn't massive. |
Yeah that's based on the market being very fickle and price driven - you're only as good as your last deal/rep to the consumer. SCGB members taking up SCGB holidays seem to be signalling they are not price sensitive at all and in fact are willing to pay over the odds for a degree of perceived exclusiveness (perceived because you can ski the same snow and stay in the same hotels outside the SCGB structure of course) - so maybe there is a niche corporate play for someone to acquire the "club" - happened to the AA and RAC of course many years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
…
maybe there is a niche corporate play for someone to acquire the "club" -
|
Goldsmith Sachs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Is the suggestion that the carpet-baggers are now running the shop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I thought this was some sort of joke/parody post at first, now realise they really did have an issue with the schnauzer club. Beggars belief, though I shouldn't be surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Perhaps someone should consult the Putta brothers of SCGBsolutions.com?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| x7 wrote: |
Is the suggestion that the carpet-baggers are now running the shop? |
Who knows? It's curious behaviour or overtly paranoid of a member's organisation to want to defend itself to that degree. What's the worst case? Someone with very deep pockets and a litigious nature decides that they own the letters SCGB? So Bezos or that admin longhair or whoever drives them off those letters and uses them for his own private merc army/starfleet- they can still presumably use their name and variants like Ski Club of GB with no reduced enjoyment by members.
Or they do want to get "assets" locked down for potential suitors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| that admin longhair or whoever drives them off those letters and uses them for his own private merc |
You mean the Snowheads Car of Great Brrrrrrruminess ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was rather thinking Spacehopper Command of Greater Bounciness under which you'd deploy your snowtroopers to lower the tone in ski resorts around the world leading pied piper-like a boinging population of kids...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn’t it be terrible if another SCGB that predates the SkiClub comes to light and takes the TM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ster wrote: |
| Wouldn’t it be terrible if another SCGB that predates the SkiClub comes to light and takes the TM. |
The whole thing makes me laugh, given how we were banned from ever using the initials when I was a rep, sorry leader, oh no now we're reps again (99-21).
When I started we had the blue and yellow jackets which really lived up to the South Croydon Gas Board pi$$take at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Stable currency innit - those dollar bills stay in your pockets easier than quid coins when you're boinging to the bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
That sounds like perfect training for the SKGB to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| AL9000 wrote: |
| Quote: |
…a good use of member subscriptions.
|
Subscriptions which pay for his time and ‘services’ 
Silly C**** of Great Britain! |
He doesn't get paid anything for his time. In point of fact, none of the directors get paid anything by the Ski Club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It's just as well they're on top of the basics of managing their Internet presence, or cyber squatters could cause a lot of confusion or act in a malicious manner...
Most organisations have a list of domain names that they register proactively to protect against this sort of thing, especially to cover their TM estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| MorningGory wrote: |
| So tempted... |
I'm sure Tony reads this and has taken a break from High Table to address the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
$75 ain't enough 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
He doesn't get paid anything for his time. In point of fact, none of the directors get paid anything by the Ski Club. |
Just about right then if he hasnt secured scgb.co.uk ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has snowHeads been trademarked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ster wrote: |
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
He doesn't get paid anything for his time. In point of fact, none of the directors get paid anything by the Ski Club. |
Just about right then if he hasnt secured scgb.co.uk ? |
He doesn't need to because the Ski Club aren't planning on using that domain. If any snowsports related organisation started using it commercially what would happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hamilton Academical, it doesn't have to be a snowsports organisation - maybe the Schnauzer Club would like it? If you are going to trademark something like SCGB, it's because that's what people associate with you, so if they're looking for a website which is related to the SCGB, would https://www.scgb.co.uk/ not be the first place they try?
Plus of course scammers are well known for being decent law-abiding citizens who would never apply for a domain name using a trademarked set of initials...
What would happen if someone registered that domain for a snowsports site? At best, you'd raise an objection and the registrar would cancel the registration. At worst, you could find yourselves in a legal process which could take months and several thousand pounds in legal fees to establish your legal case that scgb.co.uk can't be used because you own the trademark. The applicant could plead that it was a genuine mistake, and would offer to sell it to the SCGB, also for several thousand pounds. That's why companies proactively reserve those sort of domains - to prevent the hassle of enforcement action, which is usually 10-100X the cost of registering the domain.
Separate issue - trademarks are intended for "goods and services" to denote that they come from you rather than anyone else, so I can understand Freshtracks® but I'm struggling to understand what I can buy if I ask for a SCGB®
As an example, I could buy a Teflon® coated pan, not a Chemours coated pan. One is a product, the other is the organisation who make that product (or at least own the trademark for it). So maybe I could buy a SkiClubMembership® or maybe even a SkiMem® but unless I have been certified as insane I wouldn't want to buy a SCGB® as it appears to have a rapidly diminishing value...
What you need is a legal expert who can advise you on the appropriate use of trademarks  . It appears you've paid to trademark something which is not actually enforceable as you do not offer any goods or services which are called SCGB® - it's intended for brand names, logos, buzzwords and straplines.
Snowheads on the other hand could be trademarked if anyone so desired - it is a forum, so that's the service. Then we could move on to Bashes® including EOSB®, PSB®, and of course that crowd favourite SFaB®, not forgetting OktoberTest® all of which are things which are for sale or which could be described as a service, and all offered by admin via the forum. Note - not offered by Snowheads, because that's a service, not an individual or trading organisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
What you need is a legal expert who can advise you on the appropriate use of trademarks . It appears you've paid to trademark something which is not actually enforceable as you do not offer any goods or services which are called SCGB® - it's intended for brand names, logos, buzzwords and straplines.
Snowheads on the other hand could be trademarked if anyone so desired - it is a forum, so that's the service. |
I'm not following what you are sayingl. Hoover is a trademark and the name of a company not a product. SCGB offers clubby type activities related to skiing so seems to be in the same boat.
It may prove difficult to trademark snowheads as the term was in use before this site came about and uses two common words, the UK trademark office are not desperately keen on that, although if it were trademarked strictly in relation with a forum and ski holidays it would seem perfectly reasonable.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 25-08-22 19:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| He doesn't need to because the Ski Club aren't planning on using that domain. |
How do you know? Back on the board?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| MorningGory wrote: |
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| He doesn't need to because the Ski Club aren't planning on using that domain. |
How do you know? Back on the board? |
Operating under the table perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ousekjarr wrote: |
What you need is a legal expert who can advise you on the appropriate use of trademarks . It appears you've paid to trademark something which is not actually enforceable as you do not offer any goods or services which are called SCGB® - it's intended for brand names, logos, buzzwords and straplines.
Snowheads on the other hand could be trademarked if anyone so desired - it is a forum, so that's the service. |
I'm not following what you are sayingl. Hoover is a trademark and the name of a company not a product. SCGB offers clubby type activities related to skiing so seems to be in the same boat.
It may prove difficult to trademark snowheads as the term was in use before this site came about and uses two common words, the UK trademark office are not desperately keen on that, although if it were trademarked strictly in relation with a forum and ski holidays it would seem perfectly reasonable. |
He's talking groupthink shit as per normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hoovers suck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
I'm not following what you are sayingl. Hoover is a trademark and the name of a company not a product. SCGB offers clubby type activities related to skiing so seems to be in the same boat. |
Good example - see https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/genericide-the-death-of-trade-marks-by-a-thousand-cuts
Hoover is a brand, a name and a logo used on a particular range of electrical products. Hoover is not the company (any more) - the trademark is owned by Candy Hoover Group S.r.l. |
Candy Hoover group, clue is in the name.
| Quote: |
| the Hoover trademark is used in the following business: Alarms (not for vehicles); smoke, fire and heat detectors; fire extinguishers; detector and surveillance apparatus and instruments, all being electrical; and parts and fittings included in class 9 for all the aforesaid goods |
So a company called Hoover (or Candy Hoover now) that sells a range of products. Like a company called SCGB that sells a range of products, or it did. Hoover remains a trademark, as your article points out.
I'm still not really sure what point you are trying to make though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@davidof, my point was that it was a complete waste of time, effort and money to protect a "brand" which had no value outside of the existing membership.
Trademarks are for consumer sales. What financial benefit does it add? Would the time have been better spent on the finances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@davidof, my point was that it was a complete waste of time, effort and money to protect a "brand" which had no value outside of the existing membership.
Trademarks are for consumer sales. What financial benefit does it add? Would the time have been better spent on the finances? |
Ok that's clear for me. Thanks for following up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@davidof, my point was that it was a complete waste of time, effort and money to protect a "brand" which had no value outside of the existing membership.
Trademarks are for consumer sales. What financial benefit does it add? Would the time have been better spent on the finances? |
Now no one else can start a similar enterprise using that trademark. It’s not like it cost more than a few hundred.
Meanwhile, snowHeads could be used by any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| He's talking groupthink shit as per normal. |
As opposed to just talking sh*t in general??
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Hamilton Academical wrote: |
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@davidof, my point was that it was a complete waste of time, effort and money to protect a "brand" which had no value outside of the existing membership.
Trademarks are for consumer sales. What financial benefit does it add? Would the time have been better spent on the finances? |
Now no one else can start a similar enterprise using that trademark. It’s not like it cost more than a few hundred.
Meanwhile, snowHeads could be used by any. |
& so what? SCGB have cunningly sown up their own initials as a TM but failed in their "mistake" to TM "snowheads". What are SCGB going to do with those initials that is so important that they didn't feel the need to do so for 100 years? Are they going to spend their time and lots of members funds with lawyers on litigating against Shropshire Council Green Bins or whatever for infringements? Do they seriously think that anyone would be deliberately infringing on them to flog holidays? Members should be asking the why - again fiddling while Rome burns.
The cynical observer would suggest that the sudden interest in this along with the involvement of a PE type guy in doing so is characteristic of trying to lock down as many assets on the books ahead of some investment or disposal event. Which would be weird wouldn't it for a not for profit members' club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| What are SCGB going to do with those initials that is so important that they didn't feel the need to do so for 100 years? |
or to turn your question around, why didn't they do it before? The Fédération française de ski name and logo is a trademark but in the same vein who would want to use it? I don't think what the ski club have done is that unusual tbh. Whether it is what they should be focusing on now is another question and as you say, they've survived until now without registering a load of obscure acronyms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
