Is This Bike The Worst Buy In Britain.

CitizenLee

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Well right or wrong legally, I think the general response by the cycling community as whole speaks volumes. You just have to spend 30s on their Facebook or any forum to see how many people think they're being complete cockbags, again right or wrong legally notwithstanding.

That, though, is just the typical, knee jerk, little thought reaction you get to this kind of thing. The full story is often more complicated than suits your average internet ranter.

It's complicated because they're suing someone for using a town name like they did

I know you're right from a legal PoV mate... I'm just being said ranter because I think they're being dicks about something that would have little affect on their business

trooperk wrote:

Don't get me start on Specialize,my signature said it all.

Haha, I thought Lapierre had taken over that title?

One thing I noticed when owning Spesh bikes was they're a total chav magnet. As soon as they see the S they're like flies round shite.

benpinnick

The Rookie wrote:

benpinnick wrote:

Some context. An fsr comp in 2007 was £1500 (or thereabouts), a similar spec level to today's. 1500 is worth 1760 today allowing for compound inflation. An fsr comp today is 2500.

You think bike inflation has been running at 2.6%? sorry I reckon general bike inflation (across all brands) has been running at nearer 7-8% - which would put a £1500 bike then at about £2350 now......

No of course I don't. I meant inflation. You know, the one you mentioned in your original post.

Angus Young

CitizenLee wrote:

It's complicated because they're suing someone for using a town name like they did

No, they're suing a bike related company that's putting out bike components that carry a bike related trade mark that they own. It's quite simple.

rockmonkeysc

Back to the original point. I had a look at the full spec at lunch time. It's similar to the base model Decathlon full sus bike for double the price.

CitizenLee

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

It's complicated because they're suing someone for using a town name like they did

No, they're suing a bike related company that's putting out bike components that carry a bike related trade mark that they own. It's quite simple.

Still doesn't mean it isn't a dick move on their part. End of for me 8)

Long_Time_Lurker

CitizenLee wrote:

How is the name of a town/race that existed long before Specialized as a company existed, Specialized's trademark to defend? Fair enough if the guy called his cafe "Stumpjumper" but this just looks like another case of corporate bullying.

I have no love for that bike company, but I lost interest when the defendent pulled the "but I have PTSD and used to fight for the good ol' US of A" sympathy card.
As Specialized rightly pointed out, a simple search on the internet would have shown him that the name had already been trademarked.
It's not a unique situation for a small company, but in this case, the bloke didn't do his homework and then decided to go to the press to have a moan about a mistake that he made.

Angus Young

Long Time Lurker wrote:

I have no love for that bike company, but I lost interest when the defendent pulled the "but I have PTSD and used to fight for the good ol' US of A" sympathy card.

Yes, I was wondering why being a 'vet' was relevant. Clearly playing a card, there.

CitizenLee

I skimmed over all the army vet stuff too to be honest. I'm sure no one forced him to sign up.

As I said above, I understand Spesh are just trying to protect what they think is theirs. I think for me it just boils down to the fact I don't like that there are laws and business practices in place to allow this type of situation to happen. Right or wrong legally, it's snide move for a big company to make on a small shop that will have zero affect of Specialized's business or profits, and just because it's the law doesn't make it "right". The two could have happily co-existed.

njee20

As I said above, I understand Spesh are just trying to protect what they think is theirs. I think for me it just boils down to the fact I don't like that there are laws and business practices in place to allow this type of situation to happen. Right or wrong legally, it's snide move for a big company to make on a small shop that will have zero affect of Specialized's business or profits, and just because it's the law doesn't make it "right". The two could have happily co-existed.

Not sure if you're not wanting to understand, or actually not understanding, but it's not really like that. They have a legal right to protect the name, it's not a case of "thinking its theirs". Yes it's been reported as being a bit heavy handed, but if they don't protect their patents on things like this they risk setting a precedent for when Apollo rename themselves "S-Works Epic cycles".

It's not specifically the shop that's the issue, it's the fact he's putting out custom wheels with stickers saying "Roubaix Bikes" or whatever, that's the bit that's protected by the patent.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of vitriolic hate though!

CitizenLee

njee20 wrote:

As I said above, I understand Spesh are just trying to protect what they think is theirs. I think for me it just boils down to the fact I don't like that there are laws and business practices in place to allow this type of situation to happen. Right or wrong legally, it's snide move for a big company to make on a small shop that will have zero affect of Specialized's business or profits, and just because it's the law doesn't make it "right". The two could have happily co-existed.

Not sure if you're not wanting to understand, or actually not understanding, but it's not really like that. They have a legal right to protect the name, it's not a case of "thinking its theirs". Yes it's been reported as being a bit heavy handed, but if they don't protect their patents on things like this they risk setting a precedent for when Apollo rename themselves "S-Works Epic cycles".

It's not specifically the shop that's the issue, it's the fact he's putting out custom wheels with stickers saying "Roubaix Bikes" or whatever, that's the bit that's protected by the patent.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of vitriolic hate though!

No, I get that fact... and I'm sure the lawyers and legal buffs in the house can understand where I'm coming from too

cooldad

njee20 wrote:

Don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of vitriolic hate though!

Could be worse. Could be an Audi driver.

benpinnick

The trademark system is not one of ownership, it's one of protection. A lot of people forget this. The system is supposed to prevent people from passing off one product as another, it is not intended to prevent people using he same name, or giving exclusive ownership of one name to any individual or company. If it went to court they would likely find in favour of the shop as Roubaix is inherently a word associated with cycling, and there's no evidence that the shop has in any way attempted to pass off or that any confusion could ever occur.

Angus Young

benpinnick wrote:

If it went to court they would likely find in favour of the shop as Roubaix is inherently a word associated with cycling, and there's no evidence that the shop has in any way attempted to pass off or that any confusion could ever occur.

I wouldn't bet on that. 'JUST JESU IT' lost out to Nike in favour of their ownership of 'JUST DO IT'. JUST DO IT was deemed to have brand equity upon which JUST JESU IT were preying (or should that be 'praying'...). The same view would likely be taken in this case. As for "there's no evidence that the shop has in any way attempted to pass off or that any confusion could ever occur." well, it's a bike shop and bike gear carrying a trademarked name of other bike gear. That wouldn't go down well.

benpinnick

That is actually the dumbest example I think you could find.

Angus Young

benpinnick wrote:

That is actually the dumbest example I think you could find.

The Nike bit illustrates the consideration given to the brand equity contained in the trademark and the second part deals with the similarities of the associated offerings. Why is that dumb?

benpinnick

Its dumb because the Just Jesu It people are clearly and deliberately (right down to making up a word that fits jesu - do) trading on the brand of Nike. Its a slam dunk case in any court in any country. Nike made up the phrase (or at least made it famous) and these people came along and stole it. Its like providing an example that an armed burglar went to prison and therefore a person who accidentally walked out of a shop with an item that fell in their bag would also by (il)logical conclusion also go to prison - after all they both took someone else's property. Specialized have little brand equity in Roubaix ( unlike Nike who have been plastering that slogan over everything and anything since the dawn of time), they didn't 'create' it, and the guy 'using' it isn't trying to gain recognition by associating himself or his shop with Specialized. Seriously :roll:

Angus Young

benpinnick wrote:

Its dumb because the Just Jesu It people are clearly and deliberately (right down to making up a word that fits jesu - do) trading on the brand of Nike. Its a slam dunk case in any court in any country. Nike made up the phrase (or at least made it famous) and these people came along and stole it. Its like providing an example that an armed burglar went to prison and therefore a person who accidentally walked out of a shop with an item that fell in their bag would also by (il)logical conclusion also go to prison - after all they both took someone else's property. Specialized have little brand equity in Roubaix ( unlike Nike who have been plastering that slogan over everything and anything since the dawn of time), they didn't 'create' it, and the guy 'using' it isn't trying to gain recognition by associating himself or his shop with Specialized. Seriously :roll:

O.K. then, bad example, perhaps (and nothing more than the first that came to mind). But how hard do you think it would be to find a thousand other example that take it Specialized's way? And remember, ignorance is not a legal defence.

benpinnick

You're right, ignorance is not a legal defence, but back to my earlier point - the trademark system is not black and white. It is a means of protecting the trade-marker as well as those that would wish to legitimately use a mark. Ive applied for a few myself, and many have been turned down for good reason, mainly around the fact that the mark is too obvious or associated. In Canada clearly they don't have such strict rules on granting the TM, but I would bet they'd be more likely to rule in favour of the shop when they look at the facts in a court. Remember the TM examiner that grants this TM is not paid vast amounts to research it in detail, they aren't lawyers, its basically a yes/no on first pass then let the courts sort it out later if it comes to that.

rockmonkeysc

Can this thread be renamed "The Specialized legal/ethical debate"
The original subject is long gone now :roll:

benjrush

have Speccy tried to sue this company yet? Pretty sure they sell in Canada.

http://www.challengetech.it/products/ro ... aix-006/en

kajjal

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

It's complicated because they're suing someone for using a town name like they did

No, they're suing a bike related company that's putting out bike components that carry a bike related trade mark that they own. It's quite simple.

It really is that simple.

adamfo

Angus Young wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

Quick edit to ask a serious question - How can they trademark a town name, that existed for decades before they did as a company? That's what I don't understand.

It's the complex relationship between name, brand (and resultant brand equity), product and product category that's being defended, not simply the name, although that will be stretched beyond comprehension is some cases such as when the two Apples went at it some years back.

Roubaix is used as a generic term for a warmer piece of cycling clothing.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/dhb-vaeon-rouba ... bib-tight/

foy

Forget the legal stuff and lets get back to the original question thank you. Is this bike the worst buy in britain. How do these guys ever make a profit as it would be very poor value at £1000 never mind £1500.

The Rookie

Copyright, not patent, but otherwise fully agree, the guy was a dufus who I strongly suspect knew exactly what he was doing and decided to chance his arm.

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

Copyright, not patent...

Trademark. It's different again.

The Rookie

Indeed, brain fart, not patent anyway!

rockmonkeysc

foy wrote:

Forget the legal stuff and lets get back to the original question thank you. Is this bike the worst buy in britain. How do these guys ever make a profit as it would be very poor value at £1000 never mind £1500.

This is Giant's offering for the same price. I would expect a similar level of equipment from the two largest manufacturers.
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/bik ... 002/66615/

paul.skibum

News just in for the haters out there - http://bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2013/12/09/asi-says-calgary-bike-shop-can-use-roubaix-name

Angus Young

paul.skibum wrote:

News just in for the haters out there - http://bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2013/12/09/asi-says-calgary-bike-shop-can-use-roubaix-name

Mmm... ASI might be fine with it but I'm not sure they get the final say in Canada. There's nothing definitive in the article. This might just be a bit of opportunist PR harvesting.

By the way, "haters"? What are you, 12?

97th choice

RockmonkeySC wrote:

foy wrote:

Forget the legal stuff and lets get back to the original question thank you. Is this bike the worst buy in britain. How do these guys ever make a profit as it would be very poor value at £1000 never mind £1500.

This is Giant's offering for the same price. I would expect a similar level of equipment from the two largest manufacturers.
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/bik ... 002/66615/

You could argue that even the entry level trance x is better value than the camber, the epicon is a decent fork.