I might never buy from backcountry.com again!

[backcountryshaffer]

What's in a name? Just a word or a trademark? Give me a break!

Backcountry.com sues anyone who uses its namesake. Is it bullying or just business?

Backcountry.com a year ago filed for trademarks protecting the word “backcountry” for all sorts of outdoor gear as the online retailer launched its first-ever branded jackets, skis and apparel. Now the e-commerce behemoth is suing small business owners who have trademarked the word...

coloradosun.com

 

[camping1601]

This might explain why Backcountry Edge changed their name.

 

[tracker12]

I like there prices and quick shipping. I'll continue to buy from them.

 

[BAKPAKR]

I wonder if BHA is going to have to change its name to something like, “A Ways From the Road Hunters & Anglers?”

 

[slick]

Friend notified me of this last night. What a joke.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Careful @backcountryshaffer, they may come after you next for your user name.

I've ordered from Backcountry(TM) occasionally in the past, but I think I'll stick to Moosejaw from now on. MJ has pretty much the same selection of gear and has a sense of humor.

 

[Poser]

I am surprised they were able to trademark such a commonly used term. Looks like they are rolling out their own branded products from ski tools to Bike tubes. Below is a list of live and dead trademarks associated with the term. Backcountry.com has registered the term “Backcountry” multiple times in relation to specific lines of products.

An example of specific products related to one off the registrations:

The reality is that most of these small businesses could most likely fight and win a trademark case in court, however, they lack the means to do so, probably should have trademarked their respective name upon formation and also should have contested Backcountry.com’s trademark application during the approval period.

 

[Fatcamp]

Ya, they won't see my money again.
Not that they care, actual Backcountry experience is not where they make their money. Asshats.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Ridiculous. What a litigious, shithead society we live in. How can you own the rights to a word in common usage.

 

[Poser]

Ridiculous. What a litigious, shithead society we live in. How can you own the rights to a word in common usage.

You don’t own the right to the word In General, you own the rights to the word as it relates to extremely specific products. For example, the band “Black Flag” trademarks the name as it relates to musical recordings. They do a 2nd trademark as it relates merchandising. However, the bug spray “Black Flag” also has a trademark to the term as it relates to insecticide. Since the two brands using the same name can’t be easily confused and since their respective trademarks are specific to their products, they both can and do exist. I’m quite sure, for example, that I could trademark ”Backcountry dildos” if I were motivated to do so and took the necessary prerequisites such as securing the domain name, creating a logo etc and there’s not a thing that Backcountry.com could do about it. Where the path intersects here is that Backcountry.com, given its registration as it relates to ski bindings, has cause to claim that, say, a ski shop called “Backcountry Ski Experience” is cause for brand confusion and might even be capitalizing off Backcountry.com’s registered trademark, this violating their constitutional rights.

 

[MuleyFever]

Now I cannot stop wondering what the logo for Backcountry Dildos would look like. Thanks.

 

[Ratbeetle]

You don’t own the right to the word In General, you own the rights to the word as it relates to extremely specific products. For example, the band “Black Flag” trademarks the name as it relates to musical recordings. They do a 2nd trademark as it relates merchandising. However, the bug spray “Black Flag” also has a trademark to the term as it relates to insecticide. Since the two brands using the same name can’t be easily confused and since their respective trademarks are specific to their products, they both can and do exist. I’m quite sure, for example, that I could trademark ”Backcountry dildos” if I were motivated to do so and took the necessary prerequisites such as securing the domain name, creating a logo etc and there’s not a thing that Backcountry.com could do about it. Where the path intersects here is that Backcountry.com, given its registration as it relates to ski bindings, has cause to claim that, say, a ski shop called “Backcountry Ski Experience” is cause for brand confusion and might even be capitalizing off Backcountry.com’s registered trademark, this violating their constitutional rights.

I get it. In the interest of brevity, I tend to oversimplify things when I'm typing on my phone. I still think it's ludicrous to be able to cast such a wide net when applying a trademark to common words or phrases.

 

[CorbLand]

Just skim read the article but you can sue for anything. Whether it stands in court is what matters.

 

[Mtnboy]

I was told by someone once that Backcountry.com is majority owner of Black Ovis as well, anyone know if that is true?

 

[Midwest.Bushlore]

I love Backcountry! I can't imagine not buying from them, I will have to dig a little deeper but it seems like a valid use of their IP.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

this violating their constitutional rights

Trademarks aren't explicitly protected by the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (i.e., the power to issue copyrights and patents, which are distinct from trademarks).

Federal trademark protections are derived from the Lanham Act, which requires "likel[ihood] to cause mistake, or to cause confusion, or to deceive" as the standard of evidence for trademark violation. It's a stretch to say that someone attending a Backcountry Babes avalanche safety course (a service Backcountry.com doesn't offer) or purchasing an electric bike (a product Backcountry.com doesn't offer) from Backcountry eBikes would likely be deceived by the names of those entities into thinking they were actually shopping at Backcountry.com. It's not like Backcountry.com is going after some upstart outdoor gear retailer using back-country.com as their sales website and using a right-facing instead of left-facing goat logo. These are indiscriminate, frivolous suits based simply on use (with no intent to deceive) of a commonly used term that has been around since 250 years before the founding of Backcountry.com.

 

[Poser]

Trademarks aren't explicitly protected by the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (i.e., the power to issue copyrights and patents, which are distinct from trademarks).

Federal trademark protections are derived from the Lanham Act, which requires "likel[ihood] to cause mistake, or to cause confusion, or to deceive" as the standard of evidence for trademark violation. It's a stretch to say that someone attending a Backcountry Babes avalanche safety course (a service Backcountry.com doesn't offer) or purchasing an electric bike (a product Backcountry.com doesn't offer) from Backcountry eBikes would likely be deceived by the names of those entities into thinking they were actually shopping at Backcountry.com. It's not like Backcountry.com is going after some upstart outdoor gear retailer using back-country.com as their sales website and using a right-facing instead of left-facing goat logo. These are indiscriminate, frivolous suits based simply on use (with no intent to deceive) of a commonly used term that has been around since 250 years before the founding of Backcountry.com.

I don’t disagree with you. The Bike company Specialized pulled some similar trademark moves some years back and got a similar backlash. I think these small companies should fight tooth and nail. If you read the details of “Backcountry Denim, they did just that and without a copyright lawyer. It says that they reached a settlement with Backcountry.com and changed their name. That implies that Backcountry.com probably just wrote them a check to change their name in the end. I also read that they have sued another brand over the use of a goat as a company logo....

And you are correct about the constitutional aspect -I was thinking of copyrights (which are protected by the constitution).

 

[Jebuwh]

I was told by someone once that Backcountry.com is majority owner of Black Ovis as well, anyone know if that is true?

I don't believe so, at least I have never heard that. Kendall Card is the owner of Black Ovis, Camofire, and the US distributor for Crispi Boots.
*Edit* after a quick google, it looks like he worked for them for a few years in marketing before starting Black Ovis.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

I’m not buying from again

 

[Poser]

I also just noticed that the phrase “The Backcountry Hunter” was trademarked as of March 2019 to a magazine publication out of MT which could possibly have some relevance for a number of other entities and social media handles. Though, startup publications in the year 2019 likely don’t have the $ resources to be sending out cease and desist notices to pseudo instagram stars.