Specialized up to their old tricks - a new victim

imposter2.0

TheFD wrote:

You are saying they are bullying them. Spesh will say they are defending their company...
I am saying I would defend my company - not in the same way as Spesh have but I can see why they have done what they have...

So, just to be clear - do you agree with Specialized's action against Neil Pryde/Alize - or not?

Grill

TheFD wrote:

dodgy wrote:

You're posting on a thread that is discussing Specialized bullying a smallish manufacturer. In the context of this thread, you are saying you'd do the same, otherwise you wouldn't be defending them.

Or are you saying if a company set them self up as 'Speshulized' and started selling Roubaix bikes, then you'd act? Of course you would.

But this thread is about wholly disproportionate action against a smaller company and is why Specialized is getting so much grief over it.

I don't see anyone else defending them.

You are saying they are bullying them. Spesh will say they are defending their company...
I am saying I would defend my company - not in the same way as Spesh have but I can see why they have done what they have...

Again - in your eyes it is wholly disproportionate, but in Spesh's eyes it isn't. Same as Olympic movement sponsorship is wholly disproportionate in many peoples eyes but not in theirs. Same as MacDonald's have sued other companies when they step on their trademark, same as many big business (yes mostly American) do. In your eys it is unfair - in their eyes it is justified...

That's what I'm saying...

Specialized have a long history of bullying small companies to protect their IP (which they don't really own). Epic Designs, Volagi, Cafe Roubaix and now Neil Pryde. Most companies give in because they're quite small and certainly don't have the resources to compete (and in most cases it's easier). Their frivolity knows no bounds. Was anyone seriously going to mistake a company that makes saddle bags for a mountain bike? Really? It's probably only a matter of time before they sue Epic Cycles...

chippyk

I'm not here to defend Specialized. However I believe that if companies don't protect their IPR consistently, i.e. don't pursue a one man band with a seemingly minor transgression, when a more obvious infringement case arises it could weaken their case. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, make you own mind up.

Defending against a letter from a solicitor in these cases can be very expensive, I believe good London IP solicitors can charge £750 an hour and will involve associates at half that rate in the case. Very quickly one can run up very big bills so the option is fight or give in. Large companies may use this as a strategy, by gaining a reputation for being litigious, competitors can become very wary about going anywhere near their IPR to the extent that the large company has a much easier life. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a strategy many businesses in many fields use to protect themselves.

littledove44

Big company uses money to get small company (that many people haven't even heard of) to change its product name.

Some would say that this is publicity for the small company that money can't buy.

I had never heard of Cafe Roubaix but I am seriously thinking about buying wheels from them.

Grill

I also forgot to mention that they've sued WTB, Stratos and Stump Town. Ironic considering that the original Stump Jumper was ripped directly from Tom Ritchey, Gary Fisher and Charles Kelly.

homers_double

Someone asks for a bike reccomendation, someone says Allez.

They google it but misspelt, They buy the NP version and Spesh lose a sale.

Pretty simple really

imposter2.0

homers double wrote:

Someone asks for a bike reccomendation, someone says Allez.

They google it but misspelt, They buy the NP version and Spesh lose a sale.

Pretty simple really

yeah, that's always happening...

Grill

homers double wrote:

Someone asks for a bike reccomendation, someone says Allez.

They google it but misspelt, They buy the NP version and Spesh lose a sale.

Pretty simple really

How the hell does this even make sense? They're not even pronounced the same, so there's absolutely no way a muppet with the most rudimentary grasp of phonetics could spell 'Allez' as 'Alize'.

And let's not even mention that the price difference puts them in completely different categories. When was the last time you went to a shop to look at something and then went home to spend more than double on something completely different? Just ridiculous.

RDW

Grill wrote:

They're not even pronounced the same, so there's absolutely now way a muppet with the most rudimentary grasp of phonetics could spell 'Allez' as 'Alize'.

Well, they are catering to the US market. Probably their research has shown that most people in Power Cable, Nebraska think it's pronounced 'Allezz'.

For me, the main thing this legal threat has done is made me aware of one of their competitor's range of products (which I hadn't really noticed previously), and (again) linked their brand to the phrase 'corporate bully', which will come to mind the next time I'm shopping. This is probably not quite what they intended. Reasonable defence of a brand is perfectly acceptable. Claiming ownership of all words containing 'a' 'l' and 'z' is not.

desweller

TheFD wrote:

I don't get all the Specialized haters on this thread. They have the right to protect 'their' brand. All companies do this to greater and lesser extent. When the Olympics came to London, their marketing company stopped local bakers and chippies from selling 'Olympic' menu food.

If you have a company and build it up with a reputation if another firm used a similar product name then you would surely want to do something about protecting your company.

They are not trying to protect their brand, they are engaging in anti-competitive practice under the pretense of protecting their brand. 'Alize' is not a rip-off of 'Allez'. It's disengenuous to suggest otherwise.

Yellow Peril

simple bullying and incredibly unjustifiable.

Moonbiker

I don't think the typical specialized buyer even will be aware of theese issues or if they are they wouldn't care anyway.

The people who do care, most likely wouldn't buy a specialzed in the first place.


So they can get away with it without it harming there brand.

imposter2.0

Moonbiker wrote:

I don't think the typical specialized buyer even will be aware of theese issues or if they are they wouldn't care anyway.

The people who do care, most likely wouldn't buy a specialzed in the first place.


So they can get away with it without it harming there brand.

I have an S-Works Tarmac frame, which I bought new in 2012 - before any of these ridiculous legal battles kicked off. I don't know what the 'typical' buyer profile is (maybe you could share it if you know?) but it's highly unlikely I will ever buy another of their bikes, or kit, after this. In fact, I might even buy a Neil Pryde, just for the hell of it.

monkimark

I reckon Neil Pryde should counter sue - Alias sounds a lot more like Alize than Allez does
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... men-38707/

Moonbiker

Sorry just my lazy stereotype of the buyer demographic of the new sportive mammil whos walked into there LBS and automatically gone for a specialized without much thought as its the big name brand along side the treks etc.

lostboysaint

Moonbiker wrote:

Sorry just my lazy stereotype of the buyer demographic of the new sportive mammil whos walked into there LBS and automatically gone for a specialized without much thought as its the big name brand along side the treks etc.

Which is a little more than a lazy stereotype!

slowmart

Adverse publicity will damage any brand. Look at the outcome of the Café Roubaix debacle, the founder of Specialized turning up in jeans for a carefully choreographed piece of damage limitation.

And while this aggressive legal approach is questionable the tactics are entrenched and the behaviours have been part of the company for 24 years when Spec first sued RockShox and lost.

Although this was before the power of communication and awareness that the internet has provided which now shines a bright light of public opinion on the less savoury side of business.

While Specialized have in the past shaped their own actions this was changed for the first time by individuals across the cycling community universally condemning the actions of litigation in the case of the Café Roubaix as heavy handed and out of proportion to the issue.

Control has shifted and rather than a pro active role Specialized were reduced to be reactive and unwinding their stated legal position and buttressing " we are good guys" story.

Monty Dog

This isn't Specialized per se, but probably a firm of IP Lawyers under a retainer with Specialized with a specific mandate to protect their IP. Like all lawyers, they'll get paid by case load si in effect, they'll spend their time trawling for potential infringements, issue a suit / proceeding and then bill Specialized for the priviledge. The fact that this bunch of lawyers appear to be a bit over-zealous without understanding the PR implications of what they're doing e.g. Cafe Roubaix. I'm just waiting for the suit that informs us that Specialized have trade-marked every name in the French dictionary and every town in France...they've probably got a registration for "merde" but we knew that anyway!

spankwilder

Excellent marketing! I thought Neil Pryde just made sails!

rolf_f

Latest news is that they are suing Specsavers........

Schobiedoo

spankwilder wrote:

Excellent marketing! I thought Neil Pryde just made sails!

I'm sure this is marketing that they could do without!

I'm not sure Specialized could have won this. I guess it's the Specialized lawyers trying to justify to themselves that they're doing a good job.

Doris Day

But it is Fuji that owns 'Roubaix' and have the Global rights, which they let Specialized use. The reason Specialized backed down was because Fuji stepped in and told them they have no legal right to the name.

See link

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/retail-n ... 0NihNtwa6o

rpherts

BrandonA wrote:

Do we know why they actually changed their name i.e did a judge/court tell them to or did they do it themselves after speaking to Specialized?

Either way I doubt they would have done it if they knew they were in the wrong. The link may state that they don't know why they had to but this is marketing and they are bound to state that regardless of who asked/told them to do it.

As stated by others, the process is as much a punishment as losing the case. A big player can drag the thing out, and time in the legal world costs money, lots of money. At the end of it you might 'win' but have six figure costs.

rpherts

TheFD wrote:

I don't get all the Specialized haters on this thread. They have the right to protect 'their' brand. All companies do this to greater and lesser extent. When the Olympics came to London, their marketing company stopped local bakers and chippies from selling 'Olympic' menu food.

If you have a company and build it up with a reputation if another firm used a similar product name then you would surely want to do something about protecting your company.

It is possible to think a company is wrong and misguided without being labelled a 'hater'. Do you have no emotional gears between liking something and hating it? Indifference? Irritation? Mild dislike? Dislike? Severe dislike? Hater?

Mikey23

Complaint made via Specialized website... life goes on

Pross

TheFD wrote:

I don't get all the Specialized haters on this thread. They have the right to protect 'their' brand. All companies do this to greater and lesser extent.

But they aren't protecting 'their' brand are they? They are stopping someone using a word with a different meaning, different spelling and different pronunciation just because it is the same type of product and shares a few letters. I suspect they know they would have no chance of winning if it went before a judge but equally know they can win by having more money i.e. they are bullies. It would be like Citroen suing BMW for calling a car an X3 when there was a Citroen C3 in existence.

Grill

Pross wrote:

TheFD wrote:

I don't get all the Specialized haters on this thread. They have the right to protect 'their' brand. All companies do this to greater and lesser extent.

But they aren't protecting 'their' brand are they? They are stopping someone using a word with a different meaning, different spelling and different pronunciation just because it is the same type of product and shares a few letters. I suspect they know they would have no chance of winning if it went before a judge but equally know they can win by having more money i.e. they are bullies. It would be like Citroen suing BMW for calling a car an X3 when there was a Citroen C3 in existence.

Remember when VW tried to trademark 'GTI'? That didn't fly then so this shouldn't fly now.

MisterMuncher

It's like Cannondale suing Terry-Thomas. Ludicrous.

Anonymous

A lot of the people I see with Specialized are probably loving the brand even more for the fact they take these actions.

It probably makes them feel all warm inside thinking that their steel forked 2300 Allez (that they pronounce Allezzzzzz) gets this amount of protection, and that it must therefore be really, really, really good, and not just really, really good like their mate told them.

BrandonA

rpherts wrote:

BrandonA wrote:

Do we know why they actually changed their name i.e did a judge/court tell them to or did they do it themselves after speaking to Specialized?

Either way I doubt they would have done it if they knew they were in the wrong. The link may state that they don't know why they had to but this is marketing and they are bound to state that regardless of who asked/told them to do it.

As stated by others, the process is as much a punishment as losing the case. A big player can drag the thing out, and time in the legal world costs money, lots of money. At the end of it you might 'win' but have six figure costs.

Rubbish. If you believe in something you stick up for your beliefs. David can and fine does defeat Goliath, you've just got,to have the belief in your stance and see it through. You can't blame Specialized for being correct (they are correct as they won) and defending their brand.

No one had heard of this other company so I bet they are happy with all the free publicity. You can bet the odd Specilized hater will buy their unheard of bike in an anti-snobbery protest.

Specialized are a lot like Montblanc in fountain pens and Rolex in watches. They may not be the best but they are good enough and very popular and this means a lot of people are anti them. It's quite amusing when people get upset by this type of thread.