Specialized backs up their "Roubaix" trademark, not cool

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3023
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

The story appeared in Canada's national newspaper - the Globe and Mail. Exactly what you don't want if you are Specialized. How could they not see this coming - boggles the mind.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

by Weenie


User avatar
slyboots
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:31 pm
Location: Russia, Moscow

by slyboots

Mr.Gib wrote:And to answer your question - neither. I have had the good fortune to grow up in a liberal democracy with a market economy so no first hand experience of economic misery. Not heard anything on TV about this (that would make for some seriously boring TV). Learned it studying graduate economics.

Just as expected. Ignorance is bliss.

And I'm not on your side.

JMT
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:16 pm

by JMT

Interesting turn of events.


So in the end Specialized hurt their much more important brand Specialized. "We have to defend our brand" Bah, it turns out it was Specialized may not even be entitled to the Roubaix trademark registration in Canada in the first place. This is the sort of thing you pay your lawyers to think about. I am happy it blew up in their face.

ASI and its brands, FUJI etc take on the role of a white knight, looking good.

Café Roubaix gets alot of free PR.


Maybe Specialized will take PR into consideration in the future even when it comes to legal issues. And hopefully start doing their homework before sending threatening mails and initiating suits.

JMT
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:16 pm

by JMT

Geoff wrote:Pat Cunnae? Canada is a soveriegn nation and the Trademark that someone may control in the USA is not relevant here.

A Trademark was issued for the name 'Roubaix' in Canada, No. TMA702027. The wares to which the Trademark applies are: " Bicycles, bicycle frames, and bicycle components, namely bicycle handlebars, bicycle front fork, and bicycle tires". The Trademark Registrant was Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., not ASI or one of its affiliates. Accordingly, in Canada Specialized has a prima facie right to protect the Trademark. Whether that assertion survives a challenge is another issue.



I suspect that Pat Cunnae refers to the deal with ASI which may actually contain language preventing Specialized from initiating stuff like this. It is quite possible that the deal doesn't only cover the US when it comes to what Specialized can and cannot do with the trademark.
For instance:
Specialized recognizes ASI's ownership of the trademark in all jurisdictions where...

Specialized must consult ASI before bringing a suit claiming infringement ...

Specialized may not challenge ASI's rights to the mark or the rights of ASI's subsidiaries, licensees and so on.

It is also questionable to register a trademark in a jurisdiction where someone has already established that trademark for the same goods or services, especially when you do so knowingly. They'd have an uphill battle claiming entitlement to such a registration.

Geoff
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:25 am
Location: Canada

by Geoff

Notwithstanding any contractual arrangement that might exist between two parties in their home country, the Federal Crown takes no notice. The process of the Application and Registration for a Trademark in Canada includes specific grounds for the opposition of such Applications. In the event that an Application is not successfully opposed on that basis, a Registration will be granted. once Registered, that Trademark may be, prima facie, defended in Canada.

This is not to suggest that some action may not exist in contract in the home jurisdiction of the the parties, only that such a relationship is not germane to the determination of the legitimacy of a Trademark in Canada. It is entirely possible that ASI could successfully defend it's US Trademark and it's agreement with Specialized there on the basis of some contractual prohibition.

bricky21
Posts: 1405
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

Nevermind

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3023
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

slyboots wrote:
And I'm not on your side.


OK this means war. You can keep Pussy Riot in Siberia but we are going to build an Igloo right at the North Pole and put a Canadian flag on it. So there - HA!
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

Klarion
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:59 pm

by Klarion

Mr.Gib wrote:
Klarion wrote:
Mr.Gib wrote:
The problem is that without protection for intellectual property no one would be willing to invest in anything - there would be no economy.


You are rather overstating the case here. Whether you approve of them or not, there have been economies, and also sectors within economies, where the was no protection for 'intellectual property'. Things still got done.


Quite true but what kind of things are "getting done". Situations like this lead to a lack of innovation, productivity, and competitiveness. For most members of such an economy it means a much lower standard of living and for many complete misery.


Again you are exaggerating, in this instance by an over-generalisation.

To give just one example, in Japan during its period of most rapid economic growth, MITI (the industrial ministry) encouraged Japanese firms to share their technological knowledge and innovations with each other, and forced foreign corporations to hand over their intellectual property to Japanese companies as a condition of market entry.

Such policies certainly did not prevent the Japanese achieving high levels of competitiveness and affluence.

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3023
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

Ahh certain conditions may call for such radical measures and often certain types of regulation are prudent (particularly those that are designed to enhance fairness and competition). But that "technological knowledge" and "intellectual property" that the companies were forced to share would not have existed were not for an environment that protected those things from theft/misappropriation and created a reasonable expectation of return on R&D investment. The Japanese competitiveness and affluence of which you speak was in fact not the result of sharing but the result of a marketplace that supported the creation of the technologies in the first place.

Checkmate. Here endeth the lesson.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

Klarion
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:59 pm

by Klarion

Hmmm. Contrary to your implication, the period of the most rapid Japanese economic growth was from the 1950s to the 1970s, precisely when MITI was promoting technology-sharing.

In fact it is by no means clear that enforcement of intellectual property rights is a prerequisite for innovation and prosperity. As even some pro-free market economists point out, intellectual property constitutes a monopoly and may reduce innovation.

Eg:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/archive/r ... 000082.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16213

User avatar
kbbpll
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:56 am

by kbbpll

Ironically that was the time period when "made in Japan" meant cheap, low quality knock-offs, similar to what China represents today. At least in the US.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

Klarion wrote:In fact it is by no means clear that enforcement of intellectual property rights is a prerequisite for innovation and prosperity. As even some pro-free market economists point out, intellectual property constitutes a monopoly and may reduce innovation.

Eg:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/archive/r ... 000082.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16213

Pure silliness. :mrgreen:

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5422
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2


User avatar
Quinn039
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:56 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

by Quinn039

yay for happy endings.

by Weenie


Klarion
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:59 pm

by Klarion

kbbpll wrote:Ironically that was the time period when "made in Japan" meant cheap, low quality knock-offs, similar to what China represents today. At least in the US.


For sure that was no doubt the perception (though I don't think that was the case in Europe). But Japan was making major technological advances in that period. Eg, by the late '60s Japanese companies were knocking the English, Germans & Itailians off their perch in the motorcycle industry, and by the late '70s the Japanese had achieved dominance in consumer electronics.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post