Stanton Bicycles Facing German Copycat

Buying the frames and selling them on is just business, I guess. But the brand appropriation seems be a real issue for Dan. Seems like he is getting proper TM legal advice and looking at options - this is the best thing here - he should make sure he goes to a proper trade mark attorney and not a lawyer who dabbles in IP. It’s a shame he only registered the TM in the UK - an EU or German registration would help massively here. Slightly surprised he only did it so recently when brand reputation is so important for a company like Stanton - getting TMs registered for key model names etc. might be a good idea. Copyright is much less likely to be useful and far harder to enforce. Not what he needs at the present time I’m sure. If Dan needs any recommendations for a good TM attorney do PM me (I’m a patent attorney, and know enough about TMs to know that this sounds complicated and he needs good advice).

They're not really a copycat though are they as that would be someone getting frames made the same as his... Whereas from what i can see these are frames that were made for Stanton and not purchased... Which is somewhat different than 'copying' someone.

They are copying the Logo and branding

What a total pain for Stanton. These things are a total money pit to sort out

Worst stealth ad ever.

If this is just a one off batch then he may be best just letting this go and getting on with his resurrected company.

The trouble is if they go well they can just re order

Reputational risk. If the other sellers are shit then folk will think it's Dan's company, affecting his future sales.

Looks to me like someone thought Stanton would go pop and wanted to make a quick bit of cash largely undetected.

Copying frames (but not the brand) has been going on for years. Back in the early days someone was buying open mould frames and branding them as their own but turned out they were actually Orange bikes far eastern OEM frames. I think everyone denied any knowledge of the Orange connection & the new guys closed when they sold the last frame but for a while you could get an Orange Prestige for about half the price as long as you accepted a different downtube sticker & head badge.

Bloody hell, I feel sorry for Dan, what a ball ache.

The fact they’ve filed for registered TMs for the Stanton brand suggests it’s much more than just a quick buck selling a few frames or a one off. Looks like they’re trying to take over the goodwill Dan has worked hard to build up.

Quote in the article suggested they've taken over the original contract with the supplier, or are claiming they have, and are planning to build more. Definitely seems underhanded if it's not just buying the one unpaid shipment.

Regarding the requirement separately to satisfy trade mark rules in the EU, this feels like another Brexit gift

Would also be a pain if there's a frame failure/warranty and they go to Dan to sort it out.

Assume he has fame number list for all the bike he's produced/purchased?

Nightmare......

Yep. FHECKSIT as it should be called is a hole in the head that will keep on taking for, well, forever.

I worked in a previously sucessful business that as a result of Fhecksit, had to duplicate registration and accreditation in an EU country with a real live office there.  Probably cost half a million quid to set up and another 50-100k in management time / cost each year to maintain the accreditations. Just to carry on doing what we had done for the previous couple of decades

Main question - are they cheaper to buy from Germany or here?

What a ballache.

They don't appear to be shipping to the UK. And a Ti-frame doesn't save as much weight as I thought.

Love my Stanton Sherpa. I'll buy my next one (if I ever need to) from Dan.

it may be that the frames were bought un-branded, the buyer saw stanton in administration and took a cheeky punt at branding the frames assuming the non-existant company has no problem, and can sell them at a better price. Since stanton came out of administration, they're now left with a whole bunch of frames with dodgy branding on that they hastily put a trademark application into to resolve? its all very messy though for sure

it may be that the frames were bought un-branded, the buyer saw stanton in administration and took a cheeky punt at branding the frames assuming the non-existant company has no problem, and can sell them at a better price. Since stanton came out of administration, they’re now left with a whole bunch of frames with dodgy branding on that they hastily put a trademark application into to resolve? its all very messy though for sure

IINAL

But during administration "Stanton" still existed, it just wasn't run by Dan (+ others) anymore, and all the assets belong to the creditors rather than the shareholders. Once out of administration whatever was paid to the administrators (minus fees) for those assets is given to the creditors and the 'new Stanton' owns all the assets again. At no point in the process should someone have been able to just create another 'new German Stanton' using the IP, the IP was always owned by someone throughout the process. Although I guess buying up the frames was fair game.

IINALagain, but wouldn't there be some issue with using Dan's name even without the Stanton bit? I couldn't cheekily measure up a Soul frame, ping Taiwan an e-mail, get it built from the same 631/725/853 tubeset*, and then say "designed by Cy @ Cotic" even if I did come up with all new branding?

*assuming it' not custom tubing, in which case add in, cut frame in half, measure butting profiles, etc

<p>Trouble is there wasn’t a lot of IP for anyone to own as Stanton only had one UK trade mark registration. Unregistered IP (copyright and ‘passing off’ in this case) are bloody hard to enforce. </p>

I think the wide-boy German dudes are taking a bet against Dan pursuing this as it will be risky - he could end up spending a load of money and losing. Sadly, this may be an unforseen and (another) unwanted result of the administration. The best outcome would probably be to take this one on the chin, hope they sell - but slowly - and there are no issues with them. Then it is unlikely that Diederich Trötter will re-order and double down on the rip-off branding.

Whatever the outcome, it is a shitty stunt to pull. Sure, snap up some cut price frames like On One did, but to plagiarise the branding like that is out of order.

Reposted to Steel is Real, end of the day if people buy these in good faith and then have warranty issues they could be losing out.

Also pretty shitty reponse by Bike24.

The brand's Instagram https://www.instagram.com/1bike4life_official/ has the Stantons in a post from 25 May, and they also have https://www.instagram.com/stantonbikes_official/

23 frames in stock at Bike24 across all models and sizes, I wonder how many in total (so far).

Perhaps Pinkbike and Bike Magazin.de would be interested?

There is something akin to precedent: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/beware-fake-dmr-websites.html

There are no reviews on them at Bike24, yet... https://www.bike24.com/search-result/category-Components%20%3E%20Frames?searchTerm=stanton

This is what happens in business. Limited company; goes pop, suppliers lose money, original owners have no more rights than anybody else to pick up and carry on.

What? They absolutely do have the right to their IP, that doesn't cease to exist as was explained further up the page.

Yeahhhh - it's one thing buying up unwanted stock after bankruptcy and selling it on, another to brand those bikes as "Stanton", another still to do so after the company comes out of administration and starts trading again.

But the worse offence (to me) seems to be the attempt to somehow "steal" the whole brand wholesale - registering the name, working with the same factory, copy/pasting all the marketing guff from the website, and appropriating the brands history/ethos.  They have basically lifted up the brand and moved it to Germany under a different owner - whist presenting themselves as the same company.

A total dick-move from Bike24.  Regardless of the technicalities/legalities - it's very clear to see what's happened here, and very disappointing that they are cool with it.

Will be interesting to hear about it from the manufacturers perspective also.  One sympathizes with them for selling-on the original batch of frames - I can also partially forgive them for branding them as Stanton, if the company had gone into administration, I can see how they might think that was ok/zero risk.

However, I hope that Dan is prioritizing discussions with them to make sure that they aren't going to be making any more batches of frames for this "copycat" company to his original designs.  I assume that there are some restrictions in place to ensure that a company making frames to your design can't then just start selling those same frames (either branded or unbranded) to a different bike company?

That's the difference between this being a one-off batch that is a fly in the proverbial ointment, to an ongoing issue to his continuing business.

Looks like an opportunity to buy up to 23 cheap Stantons if you happen to live in Europe.  I guess you could also buy them if you lived in the UK but by the time you've paid import tax I'd imagine it would be just as cheap to buy from Dan.

It looks like this company is focused entirely on the German market (as far as I can tell Bike24 won't ship these frames to the UK) and I doubt Stanton will have to deal with any warranty issues directly. And I'd imagine once this shipment is gone it will be gone.

If I were Dan Stanton I'd file it under 'worth keeping an eye on' and get on with my life.

I always find it curious that a lot of people seem to use the phrase ‘it’s business’ in place of the phrase ‘it’s ok to be greedy, selfish and immoral’. Like ‘business’ is an alternative reality where the rules of civilised society don’t apply.

It isn’t (it’s ok, I’ve spent 30 years working with everything from vast global entities to one-man bands so I’m not some naive dreamer here).

It’s not the 90s anymore people.

Aside from the tedious legal side of this, how about we make it much simpler - is it moral?

No, obviously it isn’t.

Obviously it isn’t ok to take advantage of over ten years of an individual’s blood, sweat and tears building not only a business but something that has enriched a culture like mountain biking. A person who has a young family to support and employees who rely on them.

One of the most powerful emotions is embarrassment. If the mtb world simply bombarded all the businesses associated with 1Bike4Life (what a rubbish name btw) and Bike24 (who have a brand to protect and can’t hide as easily) with some home truths - some shame - it would probably have a bigger, certainly quicker, effect than the legal route.
Leave a review, make a comment on social, message the CEO of Bike24 on LinkedIn (yep he’s on there). They won’t like that at all.

Stanton (Dan's real one) obviously needs to now protect it's IP to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

Interestingly though with Stanton not having the trademarks registered in important territories such as the US and Germany it lowers the value of the IP of the Stanton brand and makes it more difficult to sell on as an IP package. There's a chance that Dan was able to buy the brand back from the administrator because they couldn't sell the IP to a Wiggle/CRC, PlanetX, Bike24, etc.

@BruceWee 1bike4life have tried to register the name in the EU and USA, that doesn't sound like either a one off or someone intending on holding it to ransom (see also domain squatting).

Looking at their Instagram there doesn't seem to be much to suggest they're not just after a payday for little effort one way or another.

Re. this - 'I assume that there are some restrictions in place to ensure that a company making frames to your design can’t then just start selling those same frames (either branded or unbranded) to a different bike company?'

I would assume not, outside the contract.  And to be honest, if someone has ordered a bunch of frames, then can't pay (temporarily in this case) then they're going to be resold to someone else, as has happened. Whether or not more gets paid is rather down to how the people do the making view the state of their contract and relationship with new Stanton, and balance that with how another run of frames  look as a commercial venture independent of that.

Some pretty loose interpretations of the relationship to Stanton on that German site tho'

From the 1bike4life website

The frames are now welded in the same manufactory and with the same manufacturing standards as our high-end falconry titanium and racing steel frames. This enables us to incorporate our proven quality control into this brand as well.

That looks like the frame manufacturer was already dealing with this company. I guess there was a pretty easy deal there.

I wonder what the administrator sold off and to whom? Is it possible they've sold the rights to eg the old branding in Europe to someone separately from selling the resurrected bits back to Dan?
Or, assuming that [old] Stanton owned the designs if they maybe sold to or otherwise leveraged the rights to those with the fabricator in return for future goodwill and continuing manufacture for [new] Stanton in order to keep the business saleable?

I wonder what the administrator sold off and to whom? Is it possible they’ve sold the rights to eg the old branding in Europe to someone separately from selling the resurrected bits back to Dan?

Dan showed me docs that seem to confirm he bought all the IP.

Dan showed me docs that seem to confirm he bought all the IP.

Fair do - though if he's only just applying for trade marks that would beg the question (to my completely inexpert mind at least) of what the ip actually was?

It does sound like he's getting the rough end of it in any case, legitimately or otherwise.

Thinking a bit more about it, could this simply have been a case of 1bike4life doing their manufacturer a favour?

Let's not forget that when Stanton went into administration some businesses and people lost out.  In the case of the manufacturer, they were stuck with a batch of frames that were only partially paid for.

As others have said, a lot of the value of a frame comes from the branding and reputation.  It must make it incredibly difficult to recover the 'value' in any sale.

If this manufacturer happened to also make frames for someone like Planet X then it would be easy for them to pick up the phone and say, 'Hey, do you fancy this batch?' Planet X would then give it a zany name and the market for the frames would already be there because On One is already a recognised name in mountain biking.

If this particular manufacturer couldn't find any buyers then what do you do?  If it was me I would call in a favour from one of my roadie brand customers.

What is this roadie brand supposed to do with a batch of mountain bike frames.  Do they create an entirely new brand for themselves or do they just say, 'Well, they're dead and buried and they didn't even bother registering their trademark in Europe so let's sell these frames in our country where no one has ever heard of them anyway.  Just copy and paste their marketing and run it through google translate.'

I think everyone was very surprised when Stanton was resurrected.  If they had stayed dead this batch of frames probably would have been sold and no one would have even noticed.

I think there is a very interesting story here about what happens to the scraps left over when a brand goes bust.

From a legal point of view, Stanton are 100% the victims.  However, from a moral point of view, Stanton went bust and left a mess for others to clean up as best they could.  I think it's probably a bit more shades of grey rather than the black and white this article presents.

Planet X would then give it a zany name and the market for the frames would already be there because On One is already a recognised name in mountain biking.

Aside from they didnt just give it a zany name. They made sure people knew what the frames really were.
I dont see why this company couldnt have done the same trick with their own brand.
After all if no one has heard of them whats the value of Stanton there? Best to go with their own brand (nick the advertising sure..).

I dont see why this company couldnt have done the same trick with their own brand.

I think part of the issue is that most of the value of these frames is in the brand.

Looking at 1bike4life, they have no other mountain bikes.  There isn't an existing brand to attach these frames to like Planet X were able to do with Hello Dave.

This is what makes me think it was done as a favour to their manufacturer rather than as a devious money making plot.

I could be wrong, I have no insider information.  Like I said, I feel like there is an interesting story here that STW hasn't fully investigated.  It doesn't feel like the original manufacturer, 1bike4life, or Bike24 were really given a proper chance to come clean.  It seems like they were asked for a comment rather than interviewed with a view to getting the full story of the pressures they were/are under and what they were thinking.

It honestly feels like the only people whose side of the story we got were Stanton's.  And let's not forget, it was Stanton who left the manufacturer with a pile of frames and limited options to shift them, especially in the current climate.  Not intentionally, of course, but Stanton is back from the dead and the manufacturers were still left out of pocket.

I come in peace mate but a couple of things - Stanton have quite a strong following in Germany, they’re definitely known. And they didn’t go bust.

This Andreas Kirschner character clearly gambled on that happening. It didn’t and now he’s doubling down on his position presumably because he’s sunk a lot of money and time into the stock and cloning the brand. Hopefully this story going public is giving him the sleepless nights he deserves.

I come in peace mate but a couple of things – Stanton have quite a strong following in Germany that’s not a thing. And they didn’t go bust.

This Andreas Kirschner character clearly gambled on that happening. It didn’t and now he’s doubling down on his position presumably because he’s sunk a lot of money and time into the stock and cloning the brand.

Well, maybe they didn't go bust, but surely I wasn't the only one who was very surprised to see Stanton back up and running in a version almost indistinguishable from it's previous form?

I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the German market.

However, I'd be interested to know how much money was sunk in cloning the brand.  Surely cloning is the cheap option?  If it was a lot of money and the plan was to use the Stanton frames to kickstart 1bike4life's foray into mountain biking then wouldn't that money be better spent creating a new brand?

This just smacks of being the absolute cheapest and easiest way to shift a bunch of frames that no one really wanted in the first place.  To me, at least.

Like I said though, I could be completely wrong.  And as I'm not an mtb journalist I'm not really in a position to find out what the actual story is.

I know this is not the case. Nothing underhand went on with the administrator. This was as much a surprise to them as anyone. This really is as breathtakingly bad behaviour as it looks by this Andreas Kirschner. It’ll be interesting to see if he comes out in public and how he tries to spin it - it’s telling that he hasn’t. I think he took a gamble (on Stanton going bust and disappearing) and his bluff has been called.

I know this is not the case. Nothing underhand went on with the administrator.

You know what's not the case?

And who said there was anything underhand with the administrator?

The administrator was well within their right not to settle up for the frames.  Doesn't change the fact it left the manufacturer with a bunch of frames and limited options to shift them.

For transparency I’ve been working with Dan and Stanton on and off on a consulting basis for a few years. So that’s why I keep chipping in when I see stuff that’s wide of the mark! Honestly this situation defies logical explanation- other than it’s a gamble that’s backfired. If this is so legit and ‘it’s just business guv’ then why is this Andreas Kirschner refusing to engage with Dan? Why would you reproduce someone’s life story and sell their products without ever once contacting them? It’s wrong and knowingly wrong.

Like I say, I’m all a bit close to it and I know what really happened and I can assure you there aren’t any murky grey areas to my knowledge. It’s been a very rough market and Dan has and is doing his best.

It would have been underhand for the admin to sell the business lock, stock and barrel to Dan if they’d sold it (or some part of it) to someone else. But they didn’t. So it wasn’t.

Like I say, I’m all a bit close to it and I know what really happened and I can assure you there aren’t any murky grey areas to my knowledge

The grey area is that Stanton went bust and left a frame manufacturer with a partially paid for batch of frames and limited options to shift them.

From what I can see, 1bike4life uses the same manufacturer as Stanton (or rather, the manufacturer Stanton used to use) but I could be wrong on this point.  Were they asked as a favour or somehow pressurised into taking on this batch?  I don't know how the power dynamics between smaller brands and manufacturers work so I've no idea if either scenario is feasible.

1bike4life make road and gravel bikes and therefore no option to do a Hello Dave.  They could 'create' a brand but is that really feasible for a single batch?

If they are just trying to shift a batch of frames and have been caught in a sticky legal situation I can see why they would want to avoid contact and just try to shift the frames as fast as possible.  If that's the case, once they're gone then who cares?

Has Dan spoken to the original frame manufacturer about this?  What are they saying?

It would have been underhand for the admin to sell the business lock, stock and barrel to Dan if they’d sold it (or some part of it) to someone else.

So far as I'm aware they didn't sell it lock stock and barrel otherwise he'd have bought the various liabilities, debts and commitments of the previous Stanton and still be trading as the same company.

I'm not sure about the first two but I'm pretty sure that he's now trading under a different name because Stanton wasn't sold, the assets of the business were.

The administrator has to realise as much value as they can to satisfy the various creditors to that end if - it's a big if and it's contrary to what's been said above - they can sell or otherwise monetise some of those liabilities that he didn't buy they are expected to do so.

I'm happy to accept that it's not what's happened here based on the previous posts but it certainly wouldn't be underhand to sell the things [debts] the new company didn't buy to someone else.

@brucewee I presume you don't have insta.

Go and look at the so called Stantonbikes_official page. Now comments have been deleted and they've already blocked me for calling them out. The conversation was approximately:

P1: you're not Stanton Bikes

Fakey: who is Stanton bikes? We are Stanton EU/USA Dan Stanton is Stanton UK [plus some other fluff]

Me: just because you try to register the trademark does not make it so, you don't own the IP and are no more Stanton than On One are Sick Bikes.

*blocked*

See the amount of posts with comments that don't show? That's no doubt more folk that have been blocked. They're shady ****s that know exactly what they're doing and what they're claiming to be.

FFS, they could have sold them as is direct and probably not a murmer if it was the one batch. But they've engaged another retailer to sell them and tried to pass themselves off as Stanton. Official at that. I see no doubt to benefit.

I cannot find that page - does it still exist?

The smart way to sort the issue would have been for the German company to agree with Dan a role as an EU distributor.  Always look for a way for everyone to win.

But that would’ve needed both sides to be willing to talk and I can understand if they weren’t.

Fair enough, squirrelking.

However, nothing you've described is really inconsistent with a company who is trying to shift a batch of frames they possibly didn't want in the first place, or who have found the company they thought was dead and buried is now very much alive.  If they want to get them shifted quickly then going to Bike24 makes perfect sense.

I guess one source who could clear this up is the manufacturer.  Have either Dan or STW gotten in touch with them?

My question to them would be, are you going to be making anymore Stanton frames?  If the answer is, 'No, we just came to this arrangement to try to reduce the financial hit we took when Stanton didn't complete their order' then everyone can just forget about it and move on with their lives.  Once the frames are gone they are gone.

I can only assume they aren't taking Dan's calls anymore and after this article I'd be surprised if they picked up the phone for STW either.

Really feel for Dan in this, after all gone through. I recommend listening to the STW Podcast Interview. Its excellent and really revealing what he went through. Dan has been very thoughtful about how he intends to maintain his supplier relationships.

FFS, they could have sold them as is direct and probably not a murmer if it was the one batch. But they’ve engaged another retailer to sell them and tried to pass themselves off as Stanton. Official at that. I see no doubt to benefit.

This.  Had it been just selling the batch then yes maybe they were helping the manufacturer.  Or saw a chance to make a few quid.  Branding them as Stanton is a bit cheeky, but maybe when they ordered the paint Stanton were still down.
However then describing themselves as Stanton EU Official, launching the social media  and applying for trademarks all well after Dan announced he was back in business means they are directly trying to take over the brand. Saying its "just business" isnt good enough.  Its a dick move and will mark their cards in a niche sector of the industry.

Maybe they want to lever Euro/US Distributon.  Odd, bullying way to go about it though, and if I was Dan I would tell them to FO.

They are not showing on the Bike24 site now so looks like they have dropped them.  Maybe Bike 24 have considered the ethics of this.

My question to them would be, are you going to be making anymore Stanton frames?  If the answer is, ‘No, we just came to this arrangement to try to reduce the financial hit we took when Stanton didn’t complete their order’ then everyone can just forget about it and move on with their lives.  Once the frames are gone they are gone.

Applying for the trademarks suggests the answer is not "No"

I cannot find that page – does it still exist?

Yeah it does on my Insta, I'd rather not put a link to it on a public forum though. Sorry.

I guess it also depends on what deals the administrators did with other people whilst the company was under their control

Maybe there is a Bond villain who has pulled off the crime of the century to 'steal' Stanton bikes.

Personally, I think the most obvious answer is that the easiest way to create a brand is to hit copy and paste.  Applying for the trademarks is possibly just a way of muddying the waters long enough to shift the frames.  Does anyone actually think the trademarks are going to be granted?  Who knows, maybe the US and the EU hate us so much they'll do it just for spite.

Maybe 1bike4life are a group of fundamentally evil human beings.  I think it's more likely they are just trying to make a living in the bike industry and for whatever reason thought they could make some quick money on a batch of frames using a brand that was supposed to be dead.

What was the plan for when this batch was gone? Cut frames to bits and reverse engineer the designs? Just get the factory to keep using the same designs?

It seems many want this to be a simple tale of heroes and villains but I think it's most likely more nuanced than that.

I get that this whole episode has been tough for Dan Stanton but it's been tough for everyone lately.  However, Stanton has reappeared in a form that is indistinguishable from it's previous form (from the outside) and the old Stanton left some people in the lurch.

I can see why there might not be as much sympathy for them in the wider bike industry as there is on here.

Great news that they're off Bike24 now. I just checked and you're right. They were still on there a few days ago so hopefully it's a sign of something, possibly caused by Hannah digging into it.

Were they asked as a favour or somehow pressurised into taking on this batch? I don’t know how the power dynamics between smaller brands and manufacturers work so I’ve no idea if either scenario is feasible.

Wouldn't happen ime, not with the frame factories decent quality brands use. You'd not get pressure to buy like that, though the option could well come up. Someone else's frames may be sold on after a bankruptcy but any branding would be down to the buyer.

Factories are canny when it comes to the power of brand - after all if brand (IE the rep that it's based on) wasn't so important they'd make frames and sell direct - so they tend to be pretty careful not to create a mess between customers. The q then maybe what status UK Stanton were at with the factory at the time the frames were sold on.

However, Stanton has reappeared in a form that is indistinguishable from it’s previous form

don’t forget, the administrators were initially called in to consult on turning round the business. A plan was agreed and then the investor/ main creditor changed his mind (possibly within hours) & wanted to initiate the winding up.

It’s not as if Dan has phoenixed the company to clear the debts.

The q then maybe what status UK Stanton were at with the factory at the time the frames were sold on.

To me this is the key question.

What I want to know is, what were the plans once this orphaned batch of frames was sold.  Would the factory just continue making new frames to the original drawings and selling them to the new buyer?  Would they be allowed to do that since presumably the IP of the designs doesn't belong to them?

Were 1bike4life planning to reverse engineer the designs in order to make a 'new' design that they owned, even though it was a direct copy?

It all seems a bit unlikely but now there are people on this thread with direct industry experience it would be interesting to hear what you reckon their plans were.

Would the factory just continue making new frames to the original drawings and selling them to the new buyer? Would they be allowed to do that since presumably the IP of the designs doesn’t belong to them?

IP on a frame is generally weak to non-existent (outside any tooled-for parts or patented aspects etc) so it's more about factory relationships. Based on how another brand in future is unlikely to have as much faith in a factory who'd run with another brand's designs in this way, I'd expect it's just about clearing a single batch of stock.

Maybe just me but I am struggling to seperate legalities from opinion here?

The first is all we can worry about, the second is irrelevant really, no matter how much we may dislike it.

Utimately of course it is not really any of our business (and I inlcuded journalism here)  unless we happen to buy a frame that isn't warrantied when we need it to be.

Based on how another brand in future is unlikely to have as much faith in a factory who’d run with another brand’s designs in this way, I’d expect it’s just about clearing a single batch of stock.

This is what makes me think that once these frames are gone they are gone and there's really nothing to worry about from Stanton's point of view.

Surely Dan knew this, so then why did he ask STW to write this story?

Well because there's a bunch of frames floating around that seem on first appearance to be very associated with the company he's now running.

I very much doubt there is any ip on a bunch of steel tubes joined together with a certain geometry.

I guess the basic question to start from is what should the frame manufacturer should have done with the frames they'd manufactured, but no longer had a customer for? Would there have been a right thing to do?

This is what makes me think that once these frames are gone they are gone and there’s really nothing to worry about from Stanton’s point of view.

German punter: "Dan, my frame has cracked, please can I have a new one?"

Dan Stanton: "Nowt to do with me. Good luck- go back to the retailer"

German punter (not realising that the bike they got from Bike24 is not a genuine Stanton): "They said they can't get anymore. Your name is on the downtube, give me a new frame"

Dan Stanton: "Still nothing to do with me"

German punter on Facebook: "Stanton are terrible at warranty, big bunch of bastards, don't ever buy from them".

One batch is still a problem.

I know it is hindsight, but I'm really struggling to understand why you'd run a company / brand without trademarking the name anywhere.

I make less than one or two frames a year, and still checked I wasn't considering using a name that was trademarked , and could be trademarked if I ever considered making a business of it.

I was really surprised how many bike shops had trademarked their name.

I know it is hindsight, but I’m really struggling to understand why you’d run a company / brand without trademarking the name anywhere.

Being good at a thing - in this case designing and building bike frames - does not mean you are good at running a business doing it. Plenty of businesses fall over for that very reason.

(The opposite is also very much true, I doubt Kylie jenner has a clue how to make lipstick but she ran a very good business of it)

When I said 'just about clearing a batch' I didn't mean 'just' as in it's no problem for Stanton. I'm also surprised that on one hand there was investment in the brand but on the other no TMs in place, but I don't want to be critical of what they were doing.. he got a lot further than I did or would in making his own bikes that's for sure. Just hope this works out ok for Dan.

One batch is still a problem.

Yes, but the problem comes from the fact a company went bust and was then resurrected leaving some orphaned batches of frames running around.

That and the fact the TMs were never registered which seems like a huge oversight from a business point of view.

Had it been me, I would have just said, 'OK, you have permission to sell this batch of frames but no others.'  Stanton knows exactly which frames they have afterall, given the fact it was Stanton who put the order in. If some warranty work ends up coming back to Stanton HQ somehow then just deal with it.  Think of it as a penalty for not registering the TMs properly.

It doesn't look like 1bike4life would have had any source for more Stanton frames from any kind of reputable factory.  I find it highly unlikely they would have been granted the US or EU TMs.  In a year 1bike4life would be back to selling road and gravel bikes as if nothing happened.

Instead, Dan Stanton went to STW and got them to write this story.  This has led to several people hassling Bike24 and 1bike4life on instagram which I can't help but think was the desired effect.

It's coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer (one that isn't even a competitor) for no other reason than spite and possibly to garner sympathy (which judging by the comments on here is working).

Substitute German Customer and Stanton for Anyone and Planet X and you've got their modus operandi for the last 20 years except that as far as I know,  none of the original brands subsequently came back to life. When a Ti frame I bought,which was branded as a pretty well known Dutch manufacturer but sold by PX, cracked after 3 years, I contacted the manufacturer and was sent a new one without quibble despite me having bought it for far less than RRP and them knowing this. I have subsequently had 2 more replacements in the 10 years since my original purchase. Each frame retails for well over €2,000 and yes, one can question why 3 frames have cracked over that time period but I cannot fault the honouring of their lifetime warranty. Surely anyone buying one of these passed off frames from Germany would have an initial warranty claim on them rather than Stanton, how the Germans deal with it risks their reputation not Stantons.

It’s coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer (one that isn’t even a competitor) for no other reason than spite

Well, that and wholesale adoption of someone's creative work and branding without permission which whether legal or not is unethical imho.

I’m really struggling to understand why you’d run a company / brand without trademarking the name anywhere everywhere.

Something changed on 1 January 2021. If before that date you could explain exactly what would change as regards UK:EU trademarks from that date, and exactly what UK based companies should do to be ready for it… and that explanation has since been proven to be 100% correct with no legal teams involved… then well done you. Others have been mopping up and getting things in place in the time since then, a good period of which the people at Stanton were not in the position to do the same.

Substitute German Customer and Stanton for Anyone and Planet X and you’ve got their modus operandi for the last 20 years except that as far as I know, none of the original brands subsequently came back to life.

Planet X have simply bought a few bankrupt or low value brand names a la Sports Direct, and that's ok - just helping yourself to a brand in the way that it appears here is different isn't it?

Maybe I'm missing something in how it happened so I'm not going to jump all over Bike24, that's not my intent. I just have little respect for people or companies who palm off the creativity of others as their own or fail to acknowledge prior art and influences etc. It happens too often, but that's another rant.

I must admit that to have the courage to start producing, you probably have to just jump in and avoid thinking too much about the details. I certainly got put off by overthinking the liability and legal side of things.

It’s coming across as an attempt to put pressure on another bike manufacturer

(one that isn’t even a competitor)

for no other reason than spite and possibly to garner sympathy

Wouldn't selling identical bikes with identical branding and claiming to be a related company be the absolute pinnacle of being a competitor?!

Well, that and wholesale adoption of someone’s creative work and branding without permission which whether legal or not is unethical imho.

I definitely agree.  Kind of.

Remember, Dan Stanton did not own the brand.  The administrators did.

Lets face it, the most likely destination for the Stanton brand once it went into administration was either oblivion or onto Tesco shelves for £150 each.  Lots of other examples of once good brands reduced to BSO status because the 'brand' was sold without respect for what it once was.

Possibly 1bike4life saw an opportunity to continue the brand in a respectable way without having to pay for it.  I assume they figured once the administrators got round to selling off the Stanton (UK) brand to ToysRUs they would be established as Stanton (EU) and nobody would be bothered enough to challenge them.

I'm sure even Dan Stanton would have rather seen the brand remain intact and as it was, even if he didn't own it anymore.

At least, that's how I would have justified it in my head if I'd been running 1bike4life.

Whilst I don't think you could describe the intentions as 'good', I think 'not evil' isn't too much of a stretch.

@mick_r Swarf had similar issues as did Banshee. Not every brand has either the money or experience to register trademarks as they please, no doubt after this many people will learn until it fades from memory and happens all over again.

Remember, Dan Stanton did not own the brand. The administrators did.

Dan had got the branding back (or at least the UK TM) a while ago as far as I knew. Don't know how the timing of that lined up with the bike24 thing though.

But either way, it was just a general point and I'm not intending on getting into the business or legality points, not my place or area of knowledge.

Dan had got the branding back (or at least the UK TM) a while ago as far as I knew. Don’t know how the timing of that lined up with the bike24 thing though.

Yesh, but I guess the plan to steal the brand from the administrators was hatched well before Stanton's resurrection.

I guess 1bike4life were faced with the prospect of removing all the Stanton branding from their frames and then trying to shift a bunch of unbranded frames without taking a severe financial hit or just plowing ahead with their Stanton EU plan in order to shift this batch of frames.

I very much doubt that once they found out Stanton was back they had any plans for Stanton EU beyond getting rid of the frames as quickly as possible.

1. plan to steal the brand from the administrators was hatched well before Stanton’s resurrection.

considering the administrators were still operating Stanton as a business selling frames & bikes (clues in the term administration vs a receivership) and pre dec 22 marketed the firm to potential buyers it was in no way a defunct operation.

The sale to new Stanton in mid Feb 23 (clearly stating IP  was part of the deal)  was after “lengthy negotiations “ . Probably around the time the frames were due to be paid in full so the administrators weren’t going to get a batch of frames that may jeopardise the sale. That was their decision not Dans.

Blatant rip off, no matter how much you try to try & justify it Bruce (or is it Andreas?)

Not a Stanton owner, still happy with my Dialled Alpine- if that ever does get replaced a Slackline would be nice but I’m more likely to get a Bird Zero.

It’s not as if Dan has phoenixed the company to clear the debts.

I presume the manufacturer of the frames that it sold to the German company might have a different view as to if all debts were settled.

Being good at a thing – in this case designing and building bike frames – does not mean you are good at running a business doing it.

Very true but if your going to do it as a business you owe it to yourself to learn and get the right advice

Well, clearly I was the only one who was very surprised to see Stanton reappear basically as it was before.

I just think that the industry in general is in a bad way right now (unless I've gotten that one wrong as well) and perhaps small manufacturers are making decisions that the wouldn't otherwise make.  And then doubling down when it turns out they made a mistake.

1bike4life clearly cocked up massively and it wouldn't surprise me if they have put themselves in a hole they don't know how to get themselves out of.

What I don't like is that this piece feels like a call for forumites to apply pressure in order to stop the sale of these frames. Which they did and it worked. Even if they made a mistake this is still a company with employees who no doubt have families.

I don't know how many frames we're talking about.  I also don't know what percentage of Stanton's current sales are going to Europe (Bike24 weren't sending their frames to the UK when I checked).  It could be it was necessary for Stanton's survival in which case you've got to do what you've got to do.

It just leaves a nasty taste.