Trek loses trademark infringement lawsuit

[fiamme red]

http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/18921/tiny-novato-winery-wins-trademark-case-against-trek-bicycle/

Maybe they should go after Star Trek next? :rolleyes:

[Charles M]

Fuchit. I'm suing these guys!

http://www.delucasmarket.com/paint/content/pez_product.jpg

[William]

I'm suing these guys!!!! :crap:


http://images.usoutdoorstore.com/usoutdoorstore/products/full/mrz_humps_6x_08.jpg

[Charles M]

X HARD.

Now there's a marketing feature for SexWax.

[rdparadise]

I'm suing these guys!!!! :crap:


http://images.usoutdoorstore.com/usoutdoorstore/products/full/mrz_humps_6x_08.jpg

Pez, I actually like the "best for your stick!" :banana:

Bob

[Gothard]

"Attorneys for Trek Bicycle could not be reached for comment"

Probably hiding their shame from such petty actions.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . of Trek bikes. There's reasonable protection of your trademark against obviously purposeful infringement--and then there's just petty harassment of little guys.

I think it could also be reasonably argued that the spouse of the Trek bike employee ordering the wine seemingly to specifically set up grounds for a lawsuit could open up the bike company itself to a suit based on grounds of willful harassment.

BBD

[Ozz]

Fuchit. I'm suing these guys!

get in line....

[shiftyfixedgear]

I was thinking of starting to build frames with the Yiddish word "DREK".

I hope they don't sue me . . .

[palincss]

Fuchit. I'm suing these guys!

http://www.delucasmarket.com/paint/content/pez_product.jpg

You're lucky these guys (http://www.pez.com/v/default1.htm) don't sue you!

http://content2.myyearbook.com/zenhex/images/quiz77/380593/380593_res4_pez.jpg

[Pete Serotta]

Have not tried that wine and it is amazing that Trek has so much time to worry about stuff like this in these economic times... Sounds like their time could be better spent.


. . . of Trek bikes. There's reasonable protection of your trademark against obviously purposeful infringement--and then there's just petty harassment of little guys.

I think it could also be reasonably argued that the spouse of the Trek bike employee ordering the wine seemingly to specifically set up grounds for a lawsuit could open up the bike company itself to a suit based on grounds of willful harassment.

BBD

[Waldo]

This is the stupid **** that happens when sensible cheeseheads stop drinking beer and try wine.

[geoffm]

Don't be too hard on them. They don't want to pursue these guys, the have to. Unfortunately, in order for your trademarks and patents to be upheld when you need them to be upheld, you need to prove that you vigorously pursue the defence of them when potential infringments become known to you...

[Hai H. Ho]

Coming from a legal background, I don't even see why Trek's attorneys would have even filed in the first place. They should have asked themselves if there was enough personal contact for the winery to be dragged into their state. Come on Trek, it was 3 cases! The winery never benefited from Wisconsin’s laws either. Even a 1L could have told Trek that were was no personal jurisdiction for Wisconsin to extend its long arms.

I would hope that the winery and owner Andrew Podshadley filed a motion for court costs and attorney fees. Seeing that the District Judge granted the motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, I would bet this motion would be granted too.

:no: to TREK Legal Counsel (s).

[OperaLover]

Lack of personal jurisdiction. Nothing on the merits of likelihood of confusion, which in the standard for trademark infringement. This is pure speculation, but Trek may feel that their TREK mark is now famous under the trademark statute such that the mark is afforded a broader scope of protection (given Lance Armstorng's success and recognition while riding their bikes and the promotion and long time use of the mark since at least the early 80's).

I'm not saying I agree, but that might be their position. I agree with the dismissal, but would like to see the order. Trek can likely refile and sue in California (a forum less friendly to Trek, I'm sure).

[JeffS]

Attorneys with nothing to do after bungling the LeMond case decide to pick on an easier target.

DOH :crap:

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . as to what exactly Trek (the bike company!) is claiming?

Are they claiming that Trek wine was taking advantage of Trek bikes reputation in Wisconsin to sell mail order wine there? Are they trying to assert that Trek wine was trying to do the same thing nationally and only filed in Cheese-Land because they felt the courts would be friendly to them?

Did they take a first step of sending a cease and desist letter to Trek Wine about sales in Wisconsin? Does Trek bikes have absolutely no communication between their PR and legal department's? I would think it would be a no-brainer for any PR person to point out that in filing such a suit Trek bikes would inevitably pay a heavy PR price in looking like the big bad corporate bully picking on the poor little small business man.

Additionally, their grounds for suing are so ludicrous that they didn't even make it past summary judgment. They are just making themselves look really stupid. This also makes me wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they are spending on stupid crap like this that goes into the prices of their bicycles. Just a public relations debacle all the way through . . .

BBD

[BengeBoy]

Here's some more folks they can sue:

http://www.trekinc.com/

http://www.trektoday.com/content/

http://www.trekds.com/

http://www.nwtrek.org/

http://www.trekkelly.com/home/

But this is the best:

http://www.trekpassions.com/

[Louis]

I'm going to sue every other human on the planet.

They are using up the oxygen that I should have all to myself.

[peanutgallery]

Speaking of LeMond, they need to get him on the case. He seems to have a nose for the winning lawsuits. A special consultant for trademark infringement

[fiamme red]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/04/BUQI1CAFMI.DTL

You're one of the largest manufacturers of bicycles and bicycle-related products in the known universe, with 1,200 employees, 1,700 dealers worldwide and hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. You find out that a two-person winery in Marin County has the same first name as your business. So what do you do?

Why, you sue, of course.

That's what the Trek Bicycle Corp. did to Andy and Liz Podshadley, the husband-and-wife owners of Trek Winery, who, the Wisconsin company said, infringed on its God-given right to the name.

Now, as you would rightly think, there are hundreds of registered patents or patents pending on the name "trek" including "Star Trek" (which we'll get to in a moment). Ah, but you see, one of the trademarks held by the bike corporation is for "Trek Travel," and, to follow its attorney's logic, "Trek Travel's most popular trip is through California Wine Country."

To which Trek Winery's lawyer, Will Pecau of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, acidly ripostes, "Bikes aren't wines. Anyone who can't tell the difference between the two doesn't need to be buying either one."

This week, federal Judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin threw out the case on jurisdictional grounds. Which means Trek Bicycles can refile if it so chooses, presumably in California. "I keep holding my breath that they don't, but at least it would be in our backyard, not theirs," said Andy Podshadley. Trek Bicycles attorney Amy Davison wouldn't say, but has said the firm "intends to aggressively defend its mark."

The prequel: Lawyers for CBS Studios Inc., which owns the "Star Trek" trademark, likely thought the same when they became aware of Trek Winery back in 2008. However, an amicable exchange of correspondence, including CBS' access to the winery's marketing materials, resulted in the lawyers telling the Podshadleys, in effect, to live long and prosper.

The couple's business in Novato has been working on that since the release of its first vintage in 2008. Although it produces little more than 2,000 cases annually, it has won a number of awards, including three from The Chronicle, for its '07 Syrah, Sangiovese and Cabernet. Business has been even better since news filtered down about its tangle with the bullies on bikes.

"It's funny, though," said Andy Podshadley. "So many people we meet at wine events give us the Vulcan sign. Nobody says anything about bikes."

[jpw]

Lawyers on the drip drip drip feed. Honestly!

[soulspinner]

I'm suing these guys!!!! :crap:


http://images.usoutdoorstore.com/usoutdoorstore/products/full/mrz_humps_6x_08.jpg


Best bang for your puck??? :)

[hookookadoo]

Good Friday morning reading....

To me the answer is simple:

1) We all agree there are business justifications for Trek to protect their name just like McDonalds, Budweiser, Serotta, etc.

2) Trek has a legal team(internal or external) constantly on the lookout for this stuff and whether it is a big infringement or a small infringement they analyze their options.

3) Pursuing the smaller infringements are easier and less costly and for the cheaper cost it establishes the fact that they will go after people. It is a bonus if they win the case as it will create a legal precedent but even if they lose, as in this case, the public records and media reflect the fact that they will go after people.

4) Lastly, it is cheaper to sue when the companies are young vs. when they are bigger and thus have more capital to defend themselves with.

My guess is they spent no more than $25-$50 thousand on this whole process which will be the gift that keeps on giving when other people start thinking about using the name.

(Apologize for taking the serious side of this post because a) it is Friday and b) i am sure there are at least 10 more good sex wax puns out there.) :banana:

[BengeBoy]

Good Friday morning reading....

To me the answer is simple:

1) We all agree there are business justifications for Trek to protect their name just like McDonalds, Budweiser, Serotta, etc.

2) Trek has a legal team(internal or external) constantly on the lookout for this stuff and whether it is a big infringement or a small infringement they analyze their options.

3) Pursuing the smaller infringements are easier and less costly and for the cheaper cost it establishes the fact that they will go after people. It is a bonus if they win the case as it will create a legal precedent but even if they lose, as in this case, the public records and media reflect the fact that they will go after people.

4) Lastly, it is cheaper to sue when the companies are young vs. when they are bigger and thus have more capital to defend themselves with.

My guess is they spent no more than $25-$50 thousand on this whole process which will be the gift that keeps on giving when other people start thinking about using the name.



....and the costs, time loss and stress imposed on the small businesses they sue? Just collateral damage, I guess.

[Vancouverdave]

Similar to Specialized suing Mountain Cycle for using the name "Stumptown" (a 100+ year old nickname for Portland, OR, I believe, relating to the area's logging history) as too similar to "Stumpjumper."

[spacemen3]

I'm surprised Trek haven't sued South Africa for the Great Trek. Everybody cheer the Microsoft of bicycles. :rolleyes:

[hookookadoo]

....and the costs, time loss and stress imposed on the small businesses they sue? Just collateral damage, I guess.

I wouldn't call it collateral damage I would call it intentional damage. Let's be honest, Trek Wine's logo did not happen by accident. I find it too coincidental that the font used in their logo is extremely atypical of most wine labels and AMAZINGLY like TREKs logo and go figure it even has the same name as Trek. Nah...that was not an accident.

If Trek Wine's was the mammoth and Trek bikes was a little ol' biking upstart whose new logo looked odd on a bike but amazingly close to the country's largest winery, guess whose side I'd be on? It is not about size it is about principles.

[pbjbike]

Trekking was popular way before a couple of hippies started building bikes in WI 30 years ago...If it was Gallo, or their ilk, you might have a point. The fact that a relative of a Trek employee tried to entrap the winery is more than a bit problematic, and would be central to the case, had it gone forward.

:beer:

A better beverage anyway.

[Steve in SLO]

"Attorneys for Trek Bicycle could not be reached for comment"

Probably hiding their shame from such petty actions.

Apparently you are not alone in your thoughts.

This from Chuck Ibis:
“Attorneys for Trek Bicycle could not be reached for comment.” Because they are embarrassed idiots and are shamefully hiding their heads in the sand…

[harryschwartzma]

Is it a serviceable wine that's not too inspiring? Then, the suit is justified.



If i was going to rip off a bike name, it wouldn't be Trek....
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/A3CXNN.jpg