Editor’s Note: A week after we broke this news, Backcountry has responded to the growing public backlash by dropping pending lawsuits, dismissing the law firm that was handling their intellectual property tomfoolery, and bringing David Ollila on as a volunteer advisor to help them navigate community relations.

Backcountry.com, the mega-online retailer of all things outdoor, is currently suing the inventor of the Marquette Backcountry Ski.

Snapperhead Inventions, LLC, holds a design patent for a particular kind of backcountry touring/approach ski that has since 2010 been sold as the “Marquette Backcountry Ski“.

Backcountry.com apparently thinks this use of the term is infringing on their rights or otherwise damaging their reputation or whatever. With my standard “I am not a lawyer” disclaimer, I’ll do my best to unpack what’s going on here. There’s quite a lot.

The United States Patent office refused Backcountry.com’s initial request to register further trademark of the term “Backcountry” in early 2018.

The USPTO refused that application on May 11, 2018 and May 15, 2018, “due to a likelihood of confusion with Registration No. 4303504”, and there has been a lot of legal wrangling since.

Subsequently, Backcountry applied to the USPTO to cancel Snapperhead Inventions’ existing marks.

Having been initially rejected Backcountry.com’s application to the United States Patent Office to cancel Snapperheads marks (and a few others), they’ve since initiated civil proceedings.

Ultimately the USPTO has suspended judgement while the matter is setlled in civil court (docket info).

To the lay reader, Backcountry is alleging senior trademark rights to a broadly exclusive use of the term “Backcountry” in connection with the sale of outdoor goods in the abstract, and skis in this particular instance, even though to my knowledge they don’t actually make or sell a house brand of their own, they merely exist as a pass-through warehouse retailer for skis and snowboards among other items; if you can use it in pursuit of an outdoor sport, you can probably buy it on Backcountry.com. They are essentially arguing that their use of the mark “Backcountry” suggests a certain quality and durability of goods, and that anyone else’s use of this term in conjunction with skis (or, conceivably, any product that they sell) is damaging to their intellectual property rights. In one of their applications, they allude to the absurd outcomes that might arise if such a doctrine were broadly enforced, while legalese-ing their way around it.

In fact, Backcountry.com sells many thousands of different products, many of which are not in any way specifically suited for use in the “backcountry”, whereas in the specific instance of Snapperhead’s Marquette Backcountry ski, the term “Backcountry” absolutely refers to its intended use outside of a lift-served or patrolled/maintained ski area (because the ski lacks metal edges, it is generally prohibited from ski area use). It is designed to be the unitary method of ascending AND descending, without the use of skins.

I have no idea how this plays out. My first reaction is that it sounds similar to the case of a Mr. Uzi Nissan, who had been operating an automotive repair business under his family name since 1980, which predated the re-branding of Datsun to Nissan by several years, and he had registered a website “nissan.com” four years prior to Nissan Motors’ attempt to bully him into selling it or otherwise acquiring it as though he was some domain squatter. He ultimately won, but his legal battle cost $3 million and took 8 years.

For the latest updates, follow @agnarchy on Facebook:

If you’re inclined to support Marquette Backcountry, you can use the coupon code “backcountry-free-for-all” to get 10% off a purchase of their ski (we are in no way affiliated with either party in this dispute and do not stand to gain anything on either end).

Intellectual property is garbage to begin with, and while that argument is outside the scope of this analysis, it does somewhat color my opinion. Trying to wear my “impartial hat”, however, this seems like an overreach on behalf of Backcountry.com (could Beaches Resorts sue any other hotel or resort that used the word “Beaches” in its name or marks? I would hope not, but, the “the law is a ass” and I wouldn’t be surprised if they have…)

Let us know what you think about this case in the comments below.

Smash that sign up button for our monthly newsletter