It seems that Nordstrom has decided that perhaps it was being a bit dickish in its attempt to bully over a small business in a trademark dispute. It even went so far as to say that it is sorry.
“A customer of ours e-mailed us a copy of your story from yesterday expressing their unhappiness with how they feel Nordstrom has handled this issue. I’d like you to know our thoughts. Our intention from the beginning was to co-exist with Beckons in a manner that would enable Beckons to use their trademark on yoga merchandise, while we used the Beckon name for fashion apparel and accessories. We never intended to adversely affect Ms. Prater’s business and we are sorry if this has happened. We are reaching out again to Ms. Prater’s attorneys to reach a settlement that we are hoping she will find acceptable. When we have resolved this issue, which we are hopeful will be soon, we’ll get back to you to share the outcome.”
Respect to Nordstrom for admitting its folly. Mad props to the blogosphere (especially Bob Evans at Informationweek) for swarming on Nordstrom and proving that sunshine is the best antiseptic.
Hat tip to Mike Atkins for the update.
UPDATE: The blog swarm that pushed Nordstrom to apologize has (correctly) called me out for being a bit too forgiving. Gideon hit me in my comments, and Greenfield got me in a post.
Maybe those new-dad hormones are still raging through Randazza’s tired body rendering him unduly kind, but saying sorry after costing two young women who were entirely in the right $70,000 in legal fees to fight over nothing just doesn’t begin to cut it. Now that Nordstrom was outed in this InformationWeek post and across the blawgosphere, they’re “sorry”. And it’s so sincere. And all is forgiven? (source)
Greenfield and Gideon are absolutely right. Greenfield sets the bar for what Nordstrom’s “apology” should consist of.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical, too distrusting. Perhaps the empty, meaningless, utterly vapid rhetoric in Brooke White’s email masks a sincere desire to correct the injustice done to Beckons. Not that I believe that for a second, but I could be wrong. If so, here’s the “settlement” that I propose:
1. Nordstrom drops any attempt to claim ownership of the trademark “Beckons”.
2. Nordstrom pays Beckons $70,000 to cover its attorneys fees.
3. Nordstrom licenses the name from Beckons for whatever clothing it wants to sell in its stores.
4. Nordstrom orders the entire output of the Beckons line of clothing for the time it held them captive to litigation.
5. Nordstrom publicly admits its abusive litigation practice intended to prevail by crushing small business.Not only does this compensate Beckons for the harm done, but it puts the “Beckons” name inside Nordstrom. After all, isn’t that all they ever really wanted in the first place? Then I’ll believe they’re sorry. Until then, I’m not buying.
I’m glad to see that although my daughter’s smile has temporarily taken the cynic out of me, I can count on my curmudgeonly friends to set things straight.
By Email
By RSS Feed
Good for them, or else Nordstrom-domus (a.k.a. public outcry) was in order :D
Sounds like a whole lot of nothing yet. I’ll believe they’re sorry when they pay the legal bills of the two women.
Weak. Very weak.
Gee, Gideon, you have a point. See,for one moment I do that “thinking the best of people” thing and it blows up in my face.
Roles are reversed, then, I guess, ’cause I usually do the “think best of people” thing and that always blows up in my face. So I figured this one time I’d be cynical. But you have to admit that the apology is a bit thin.
I’m with Gideon and Scott: this is nothing. If you look at the original trademark, the first (Beckons) application did not cover only “yoga merchandise” and the second (Beckon) did not, IIRC, cover apparel at all.
I’ll bet this has been good for Beckons’s business. Bad for their pocketbook, though.
On further review, there was another Nordstrom Beckon trademark app covering “women’s fashion apparel, namely, cardigans, shawls, gloves, shrugs, belts, scarves, wraps and hats.”
The Beckons trademark covers “CLOTHING, NAMELY PANTS, SHIRTS, T-SHIRTS, SHORTS, DRESSES, SWEATPANTS, AND JACKETS. ”
I don’t know how this trademark stuff works, but why should Beckons have to tolerate Nordstrom infringing on their trademark with any sort of clothing?
Yeah, I’m with them too. I was being soft.
And you may not formally “know how this trademark stuff works,” but you’ve hit it on the head. Beckons shouldn’t have to tolerate Nordstrom infringing on its mark with any sort of clothing.
While I’m not of the opinion that All Wisdom is Contained in the Legal Blogosphere (AKICIF, of course, but that’s another thing), Bennett has repeatedly gave Nordstrom’s advance notice on how to clean this up: people love you when you admit screwing up. Add a little insight from Richard Nixon — the limited hangout route doesn’t work — and Nordstrom’s has any of a number of clear paths into turning this lemon they’ve created into lemonade.
Sure, spend a few bucks, apologize unambiguously, laugh at themselves for being idiots, and invite the audience/customers to laugh along with them. Bread cast upon the waters, and all.
Instead, they’re going for a limited Bart Simpson Defense: “we didn’t do anything wrong, nobody saw us, you can’t prove anything, and we promise never to do it again.”
My new business card: Am Curmudgeon, Will Travel. Curmudgeons of the world unite!
[...] Blake Nordstrom hasn’t yet responded to my letter of the 11th, but, as Marc Randazza notes, his company’s VP of Corporate Communications, Brooke White, sent an email to [...]