Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

A Letter to Blake Nordstrom

        11 Feb­ru­ary 2009

Blake Nord­strom
Pres­i­dent
Nord­strom
1700 Sev­enth Avenue, Suite 300
Seat­tle, WA 98101

Dear Mr. Nordstrom:

I’m not a PR expert, but I sus­pect that your company’s efforts to crush the own­ers of the trade­mark “Beck­ons” are not win­ning you any friends — nobody likes a bully.

I hope you’ll agree with me from the out­set that, while it might be an amus­ing name for a line, say, of lin­gerie, “Beckon” is a mean­ing­less (not to say dumb) name for women’s hand­bags. Even if you think “Beckon” is a lyri­cal name for a line of coin purses, it’s cer­tainly not a name that is worth throw­ing away the more than a hun­dred years of good­will attached to your own family’s name.

Legally, you may have been right at first — it appears that the PTO screwed up and approved your trade­mark when Sather-Prater LLC’s appli­ca­tion was already pend­ing. You may even be legally right now, but take it from a criminal-defense lawyer: there is often a huge gulf between “legally right” and “well-liked”.

I’d like to sug­gest five other pos­si­ble trade­marks for your line of hand­bags, wal­lets, travel bags, and so forth. I think you’ll find that, while none of them are any more inap­po­site than “Beckon,” all of them con­vey the same feel, and that at least one of them is not already in use by some­one else in the cloth­ing business:

    Reckon;
    Sec­ond;
    Peckin’;
    Wreckin’; or
    Fecund.

You are free to use any of these with­out attri­bu­tion to me. Also, there is no charge for this advice. I’m just try­ing to be help­ful — clearly, your lawyers didn’t clear their attack on Ms. Sather and Ms. Prater with you or your pub­lic rela­tions depart­ment. Surely the $70,000 that they have spent on legal fees pales in com­par­i­son to the good­will that your lawyers have, to be blunt, pissed away.

Please don’t hes­i­tate to call me if there is any­thing else I can do for you.

            Thank you,

            Mark Bennett

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

6 Responses to “A Letter to Blake Nordstrom”

  1. a says:

    Thanks for post­ing this. I’ll be send­ing my let­ter today.

  2. Clay S. Conrad says:

    My guess: Nord­stroms could not care less about this issue. How­ever, their big-firm civil attor­neys are billing hun­dreds of dol­lars an hour to keep the fight going. And in-house coun­sel doesn’t care about PR, or the effect his actiuons are hav­ing on the cor­po­ra­tion as a whole: he just hates to lose. Bill­able hours and egos, com­bined together, are a relent­less force.

    Does Beck­ons have a web site? After all, it’s almost Valentine’s day. Time to buy presents.

    • Timothy O. Schranck says:

      Mr. Con­rad:

      First things first: it is Nord­strom, not “Nord­stroms”. Just like “Lego” not “Legos”.

      Sec­ond, assum­ing you are the same Clay S. Con­rad, I per­son­ally won­der how much inter­ac­tion you have had in your Hous­ton crim­i­nal defense prac­tice with Nordstrom’s “big-firm civil attor­neys billing hun­dreds of dol­lars an hour” (Inci­den­tally, I note your rate is listed at $300 and most Amer­i­cans would con­sider that “hun­dreds of dol­lars an hour”) and/or with Nordstrom’s “in-house coun­sel” that would qual­ify you to rea­son­ably opine regard­ing same. I per­son­ally know noth­ing about this PTO dis­pute or about patent law. What I do know, from per­sonal expe­ri­ence, is that the “in-house coun­sel” at Nord­strom with whom I have dealt are among the most com­pe­tent and car­ing attor­neys I have encoun­tered dur­ing my legal career. In my expe­ri­ence (yes, expe­ri­ence), you could not be more wrong about how Nordstrom’s in-house coun­sel feel about the com­pany and how it is per­ceived by the public.

      C’mon, Clay, you’re an attor­ney: stick to the facts and the law and stop pound­ing the table for cheap points.

      Tim­o­thy O. Schranck

      • Clay S. Conrad says:

        Your con­clu­sion is that “the “in-house coun­sel” at Nord­strom with whom I have dealt are among the most com­pe­tent and car­ing attor­neys I have encoun­tered dur­ing my legal career. In my expe­ri­ence (yes, expe­ri­ence), you could not be more wrong about how Nordstrom’s in-house coun­sel feel about the com­pany and how it is per­ceived by the public.”

        Yet they haven’t repaid these women their legal fees and aban­doned their case?

        It appears that your eval­u­a­tion is some­what sus­pect. IF they were com­pe­tent and car­ing, this case would never have been FILED, much less vig­or­ously pur­sued, and they would have acted to fix the dam­age their actions have caused to Beck­ons Organic. Their actions demon­strate nei­ther com­pe­tence nor ethics.

        Like I said, it all comes down to bill­able hours and egos. When the dust set­tles, all we can hope for is that this whole ugly chain of events causes more dam­age to Nord­stroms (they’ve lost my respect, so why would I respect them enough to care what they are called?) than to Beckons.

  3. […] Nord­strom tried to attack tiny Beck­ons based on its mark, a sim­i­lar uproar erupted on the inter­net. Blog­gers wrote open let­ters to Nord­strom and called for its boy­cott. Again, there was no way Nord­strom or its lawyers antic­i­pated that what […]

Leave a non-anonymous Reply