• Forums
  • Ski Gabber
  • ON3P received demand to change name of “Great Scott”

Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

ON3P received demand to change name of “Great Scott”

profile picture
iggyskier
Posts: 10447 - Karma: 10,018

This post is meant to inform anyone who has to date purchased a “Great Scott” ski from ON3P, or those who are considering a future purchase.  In late October, ON3P received a cease and desist order from SCOTT USA Ltd., and its affiliates SCOTT Sports SA and SCOTT USA Inc., demanding ON3P immediately cease commercialization and sales of all “Great Scott” branded skis for reasons of  trademark infringement. 

We are current exploring the legality of the use of “Scott” in the name of our ski “Great Scott” and should reach a decision in the near future.

Once we have reached a decision, I will post an update on the matter.

Scott Andrus

Nov 1 2009 10:00PM
43 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Not only is the analogy you quoted really dumb (Armada is not a personal name like "Scott" nor is it a commonly known phrase like "Great Scott"), you're doubly wrong because no one could ever buy the Great Scott thinking they were buying a Scott ski. Why? Because a) nowhere on the ski does the word "Scott" appear, and b) you can only buy On3p skis on On3p Skis' website. How much of a complete retard would you have to be to go on ON3P's website and think, "Hey, that's weird, On3p sells 5 models of its own skis, and one model that's made by Scott USA, which appears strangely similar to the 5 it makes itself in terms of design and graphics!"

Try again.
Nov 3 2009 1:38PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Last year's Armada gloves: 40 bucks on backcountry.com. Last year's Joystick leather gloves: 40 bucks on evogear. Make it happen.
Nov 3 2009 1:39PM
0 0
profile picture
bootleg_BEN
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 44
Im trying to trade/sell a hoodie for some gloves, they are park gloves and i only use them few times a season so not to big of a deal.


Other than that though i dont know what Scott USA was thinking, im hoping it is something along the lines of the legal department sending this out and somebody that isnt a complete idiot will realize what is happening and pull back the order and it will just be a misunderstanding from a gaper legal department person.
Nov 3 2009 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
ski@jaypeak2
Posts: 2802 - Karma: 429
Has Armada ever thought about suing Nissan?  I mean Armada came out in 2002 while it wasnt untill 2004 that Nissan debuted its Armada SUV.
Nov 3 2009 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
They'd lose, no one will reasonably be confused into thinking Nissan is making skis or Armada is making a car. The businesses are too different. The classic example is Matel (makers of the Barbie doll) suing Barbie's restaurant and losing because no one is likely to think the two businesses are run by the same people given that they have totally different purposes.
Nov 3 2009 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Huck
Posts: 6096 - Karma: 14,896
Sorry, still got to disagree:

A Armada N ARDMORE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004 323-665-5269 A Armada ARMADA DR
VENTURA, CA 93003 805-644-5676 Andrew Armada LEMONA AVE
NORTH HILLS, CA 91343 818-893-5735 Ariston Armada POSADA DEL SOL
NOVATO, CA 94949 415-884-0518 Arnold Armada GLENOAKS BLVD
SYLMAR, CA 91342
Great Scott is like someone making a ski called the Better Line IMO.  I like both of these companies and I think the situation sucks.  Small companies can't afford to spend big money on litigation.  No one wins here.  I wish it hadn't happened. 
Nov 3 2009 2:00PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 639
Wait, so my pair of Armada ARVs isn't car?
SHIT!!!!!!!
Nov 3 2009 2:00PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
You might still disagree, but you're still wrong.

The way it works is, whether an average person would think of the mark as primarily merely a name, or a word that operates as a brand. Anyone you might ask walking down the street would not look at "Armada" as a common name. However, even the most involved person with skiing who knows all of the Scott USA ski lineup will tell you that the word "Scott" is primarily a personal name, which also just happens to be a brand name. This is further borne out by the fact that the Scott ski brand is actually named after its founder.
Nov 3 2009 2:06PM
0 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
Correct.

They are boats.
Nov 3 2009 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Special boats for floating on frozen water.
Nov 3 2009 2:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Huck
Posts: 6096 - Karma: 14,896
Maybe I am.  I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on T.V.  I don't hate either Company.  There is a lot of hate on this thread toward Scott, which is a company I have respected for years; wait decades.  That's all. 
Nov 3 2009 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Well that's to be expected when you sue a company that's smaller than you and can't afford to defend itself... people tend to look at it like bullying.
Nov 3 2009 2:17PM
0 0
profile picture
aoe
Posts: 2947 - Karma: 51
J.D. is right. And as fucked as the legal situation may be in some cases, these type of cases often come down to common sense. If it isn't apparent that a name is meant to infringe on another name, be it because it is a person's proper name or they operate in two entirely different industries, then it's gonna get thrown out in 95% of cases.

Common sense in the legal system is a good thing and the reason why if this went to court it wouldn't likely amount to anything.
Nov 3 2009 2:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Pugalope
Posts: 376 - Karma: 508
They are not worried about the people who know skis. they are worried that theier brand of skis will get confused with on3p. This suit is actually vaild... and really its just a name, i would rather see this worked out outside of court
Nov 3 2009 3:22PM
0 0
profile picture
lunchmeat
Posts: 922 - Karma: 227

Right.

a company that's logo is plastered across Video games, ski/snowboard/motorbike/mountainbike/snowmobile/roadbike magazines, resorts across the globe, and has been running for over 50 years? how many pairs of scott goggles do you see at your home mountain when all the tourists come for the weekend? Scott may not be the most popular company in the newschoolers demographic, but it sure as hell is one giant company in the ski industry

Nov 3 2009 4:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
Are you fucking illiterate?
Have you not read J.D.s post like ten posts up?
Have you not realized why it is NOT POSSIBLE to confuse them unless you are actually mentally retarded, or tripping on acid and just wandering the internet.
Nov 3 2009 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Bangzilla
Posts: 62 - Karma: 13

Agreed, "Great Scott" is a thing long before Scott started making any products.

This has probably been posted but I dont have time to read all 7 pages.

WIKIPEDIA

The expression is of uncertain origin. It is believed to date back at least as far as the American Civil War, and may refer to the commander‑in‑chief of the U.S. Army, General Winfield Scott. The general, known to his troops as Old Fuss and Feathers, weighed 300 pounds (21 stone or 136 kg) in his later years and was too fat to ride a horse.[1] A May 1861 edition of the New York Times carried the sentence:

These gathering hosts of loyal freemen, under the command of the great SCOTT.

In an 1871 issue of Galaxy magazine, there is:

"Great—Scott!" he gasped in his stupefaction, using the name of the then commander-in-chief for an oath, as officers sometimes did in those days.

The phrase also appears in the 3 May 1864 diary entry by Private Robert Knox Sneden (later published as Eye of the Storm: a Civil War Odyssey):

‘Great Scott,’ who would have thought that this would be the destiny of the Union Volunteer in 1861–2 while marching down Broadway to the tune of ‘John Brown’s Body’.[1]

Another possible origin is people seeking to emulate the German Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha altered and anglicized "Grüß Gott!", or "God bless!" into "Great Scott!". The etymologist and author John Ciardi once believed this, but later recanted in a radio broadcast in 1985. Despite that recantation, the expression is likely to be a minced oath: a mild substitute for invoking the name of God; very possibly derived from the phrase "[by the] grace of God".

Scott USA clearly has no case. 

If I was ON3P I would not worry about it a bit.  They are not going to spend the money to sue you.  It is free to send someone a letter from a lawyer, it costs a lot to try take someone to court.

Nov 3 2009 4:21PM
0 0
profile picture
C.Wood
Posts: 2524 - Karma: 180
just take away one of the 't' in the name
you did change it and it isn't the same as their name
Nov 3 2009 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Peach.
Posts: 3879 - Karma: 933
As said above they shouldn't have to.
Nov 3 2009 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
"Great Scot"? Probably end up getting suid by some company that makes kilts.
Nov 3 2009 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
NickyBPorters
Posts: 114 - Karma: 50
Change the name, that's a stupid name for a ski anyway.
Nov 3 2009 6:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Deletedtoday
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 398
RE NAME IT AFTER WILL!
Nov 3 2009 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
Trollin for crabs
Nov 3 2009 6:53PM
0 0
profile picture
The_Future
Posts: 1418 - Karma: 607
Bump to the front page because I believe this shit should be a sticky anyways.
Nov 3 2009 11:59PM
0 0
profile picture
.peter
Posts: 1222 - Karma: 63
Okay lets be real here. How many people on this website could possibly mistake an ON3P product for a SCOTT one? None hopefully. So the problem then lies in the average consumer. But think about it, How many average consumers know what SCOTT skies are let alone ON3P. 99% of the time, average skiers rent their equipment, or buy whatever ski mart caries which is neither of the two brands. ANd if by some strange accident they wander into a real ski shop with the intent to buy skis not made by dynastar salomon or rossi, what are the chances that that shop will have either, let alone both of those brands.
Sure from a technicality standpoint, it may seem like there's an issue, and like the survival of the SCOTT product name is in jeopardy, bot how many people not on NS.com have even heard of ON3P before.
And if the consumer were buying them online, chances are they'd go to a website that doesn't cary ON3P or SCOTT skis. (have any of you every tried to buy/ find SCOTT skis online it's not easy.)

This is just another frivolous lawsuit brought forth by profit motivated lawyers who don't know anything about the industry in which they work. Why? because they really don't have to. Props to Jib Yard for only hiring people who actually ride.
Nov 4 2009 12:03AM
0 0
profile picture
ZavierV
Posts: 5077 - Karma: 100
The chances are zero because On3p skis can only be purchase from the On3p website.
Nov 4 2009 12:07AM
0 0
profile picture
lanks
Posts: 12544 - Karma: 73
i'd say the only legitimate argument that could be made on behalf of scott would be that if a google search of "scott skis" was conducted and by chance the on3p great scott appeared (which would clearly defy the laws of google search optimization)... then confusion could arise if the google searcher was missing a chromosome and couldn't make a distinction between brand and model. farfetched? absolutely. just sayin'.
Nov 4 2009 1:02AM
0 0
profile picture
freelowda
Posts: 1311 - Karma: 1,583
If you Google "great scott skis" right now, this thread is the top hit, haha.
Nov 4 2009 1:05AM
1 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
True story.
Nov 4 2009 1:07AM
0 0
profile picture
lanks
Posts: 12544 - Karma: 73
niice.
Nov 4 2009 1:08AM
0 0
profile picture
danbrown
Posts: 11939 - Karma: 21,826
Got a pair from a girlfriend's little sister, I ain't paid shiiiit
Nov 4 2009 1:09AM
0 0
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
http://www.usoutdoorstore.com/outlet/burton-great-scott-cap.html

Burton got away with it. Not a ski, but they are in snowsports.




and bump
Nov 4 2009 9:24AM
1 0
profile picture
edd1e
Posts: 679 - Karma: 16
http://www.greatscottmagic4u.com/

the great scott, magician

http://www.myspace.com/djgreatscott

dj great scott

lol more than one magician

http://www.thegreatscott.com/
Nov 4 2009 10:15AM
0 0
profile picture
edd1e
Posts: 679 - Karma: 16
http://greatscottmagic4u.com/images/Leaning.jpg
Nov 4 2009 10:18AM
0 0
profile picture
kepler.
Posts: 8761 - Karma: 139
What are the chances the few boutiques that sell ON3P are going to sell a customer them a ski and tell them it's a Scott ski?

Seriously, ON3P isn't sold at your local sporting good's store. It's a small very specialized company with extremely unique skis. Even 4 year olds can tell the differences between shape and color...
Nov 4 2009 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
pussymoneyweed
Posts: 2055 - Karma: 60
gtfo. YOU CAN'T CONFUSE A MAGICIAN OR A DJ WITH A SKI.
Nov 4 2009 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Fish_Sandwich.
Posts: 9108 - Karma: 16
If somebody is dumb enough to confuse Scott skis with ON3P skis, or with the model "The Great Scott," I'm sure they posses enough stupidity to confuse a magician and a DJ with a pair of skis.  I'm surprised said people can even use the interwebz.
Nov 4 2009 3:59PM
0 0
profile picture
wrenegade
Posts: 6631 - Karma: 41
Ya but Burton's legal team would eat Scott USA for breakfast. Not so with ON3P.
Nov 4 2009 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
jnizzle
Posts: 365 - Karma: 75
WME+SCOTT<ON3P+LEVEL 1
Nov 4 2009 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Well zero, because there are so few boutiques that sell ON3P, they don't even exist.
Nov 4 2009 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
DirtyMick
Posts: 1496 - Karma: 21
Haha.

Someone email Scott USA that link and ask them if they'll be suing Burton next.

Should be a sticky until it's resolved IMO.

I have Scott poles, however after this, I'll be supporting other companies such as Joystick.
Nov 4 2009 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Cincher
Posts: 3403 - Karma: 535
From what I would think Scott would feel Burton as less of a threat as they make snowboards.
Nov 4 2009 5:56PM
0 0
profile picture
kepler.
Posts: 8761 - Karma: 139
Really? I was only taking a stab that a few shops had some ON3P's.

In that case, this cease and desist is even more ridiculous.
Nov 4 2009 6:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Contender
Posts: 3318 - Karma: 233
*sigh* wow
Nov 5 2009 12:34AM
0 0
profile picture
meggles
Posts: 3156 - Karma: 54
I'm really surprised there hasn't been a story on the front page with this yet
Nov 7 2009 9:36AM
0 0
profile picture
B-runge
Posts: 16558 - Karma: 361
another reason why scott skis fucking suck.
Nov 7 2009 11:10AM
0 0
profile picture
exile_ch
Posts: 715 - Karma: 609
I'm not sure I'm seeing it.
Nov 7 2009 11:12AM
0 0
profile picture
prophet
Posts: 4734 - Karma: 1,007
a responsible report cant really be made until its more resolved... ns isnt really in a position to do so, its not the same as with the wme suit.
Nov 7 2009 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
-_-Johnny-_-
Posts: 480 - Karma: 39
Yes! wtf is up with that. I don't see the difference between WME and Scott right now. Fuck scott.

Also, what's up with Tom signing with scott making the front page and the man, the legend Julien Regnier getting kicked out of the company he co founded not getting a mention?
Nov 9 2009 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
3R1C
Posts: 367 - Karma: 14

blurb_facepalm2_20090622.jpg

Nov 9 2009 8:39PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)