Accessibility Widget: On | Off

Fox and Slik Graphics

Related:
Create New Tag

7/27/2020 11:41 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/27/2020 12:27 PM

Just had this drop into my inbox, some of you might like to know the following


“Slik Graphics

Update - Brand Removed - Fox

Guy

We are writing to let you know that we've removed Fox content and decals from our site and offering.

Late July, we were contacted out of the blue by the suits representing Fox Factory stating their demand for us to remove potentially trademark infringing content at short notice. If we did not comply with their demands they would exercise costly legal actions.

We are a family business, this is very much a David and Goliath situation; while we work on a solution, we have removed some content and products from sale.

We tried to open a dialogue, we made a generous offer; we were quickly turned away.

We believe that having access to high-quality decals is a benefit to everyone concerned, but most of all to you guys, our valued customers. We are going to continue our efforts to find a solution. In the meantime, we hope that you can offer your hand… If we spread the word we hope that we can open a dialogue and create an agreement!

— Please show your support by signing this petition.

While we understand your frustration, we will be responding to any Fox decal and sticker requests with this same message only.

Thanks for your time,
Owen & the Slik family”


Here is a link to the petition in the email https://www.change.org/p/fox-factory-ltd-help-slik-graphics-offer-fox-decals?recruiter=1053482160&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

|

7/27/2020 12:39 PM

SIGNED!!

what the hell Fox? Come on? Are they really threatening your profits that much? Doubt it!

|

7/27/2020 2:55 PM
Edited Date/Time: 7/28/2020 4:55 PM

Two thoughts:

1) If Fox offered this product Slik wouldn’t have to. They're filling a market hole in the market that Fox refuses to. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to get ANY aftermarket replacement decals through Fox for a fork that’s more than a couple years old? Basically impossible.

2) Slik is not competing with Fox. It’s not like they’re making suspension forks and then using the Fox brand name to sell them. They’re supporting existing Fox products. If anything, Slik is giving buyers more reasons to buy Fox forks by knowing they have aftermarket options for the product.

So lame. Have purchased Fox and DT Swiss replacement decals from Slik and have been ecstatic with the product and ease of shopping. Hope they can find a licensing solution.

|

7/28/2020 12:50 AM

For me it’s a dick move by Fox. If they offered this service I’d see no problem either but the fact is they don’t and the quality of the Slik stuff is exceptional. I’ve used them for rim and fork decals and the quality is that much higher than you’d get direct from a manufacturer. Nice smooth vinyl with great colours that hold up to the abuses of winter uk riding. Defo can’t say the same about fox factory stuff that looks tatty after a couple of months of getting swiped by brambles.

I’m glad I don’t ride their stuff any more and switched to Swedish gold if this is the sort of stance they take limiting aftermarket options for customers

|

7/28/2020 1:03 AM

Real dick move by Fox... if they’re too lazy to make custom fork and shock graphics for the consumer then someone else will step in and do it... what’s the point of suing them anyway? A decal costs 20-30€ while a fork costs 1600€ And you can’t buy a sticker if you don’t have a fork so fox should actually be thanking slik.

|

7/28/2020 1:18 AM
Edited Date/Time: 7/28/2020 1:21 AM

A quick google and eBay search shows there are loads of other people making aftermarket decals- are fox going to go after all of them or is it just Slik?

|

7/28/2020 5:28 AM

Dick move? Sure. but to play devil's advocate, the trademark is owned by Fox and Slik is making a profit off of it. If you're making Nike shirts in your basement and selling them online don't you think there'd be a lawyer knocking at your door at some point?

As cool as their product is (and yes, it fills a market void), you can't use someone elses logo and make a profit off of it unless you have licensed that right.

|

7/28/2020 7:01 AM

DoctorJD wrote:

Dick move? Sure. but to play devil's advocate, the trademark is owned by Fox and Slik is making a profit off of it. If you're making Nike shirts in your basement and selling them online don't you think there'd be a lawyer knocking at your door at some point?

As cool as their product is (and yes, it fills a market void), you can't use someone elses logo and make a profit off of it unless you have licensed that right.

Agreed... But from the side of Slik it sounds like they tried to make an offer to them. Now we'll have to take their word that it was fair, but it sounds as if they tried to do the right thing as soon as they were notified.

|

7/28/2020 9:41 AM

I agree that Fox has every right to defend their trademark but it definitely is a dick move. At the end of the day though we must realize that Fox has been a publicly traded company for some time now and their priority is to do what is profitable to the shareholder. Maybe they will be launching a custom graphics program soon or something.

|

7/28/2020 1:46 PM

DoctorJD wrote:

Dick move? Sure. but to play devil's advocate, the trademark is owned by Fox and Slik is making a profit off of it. If you're making Nike shirts in your basement and selling them online don't you think there'd be a lawyer knocking at your door at some point?

As cool as their product is (and yes, it fills a market void), you can't use someone elses logo and make a profit off of it unless you have licensed that right.

20mmrain wrote:

Agreed... But from the side of Slik it sounds like they tried to make an offer to them. Now we'll have to take their word that it was fair, but it sounds as if they tried to do the right thing as soon as they were notified.

Slik doesn't get to make an offer, no matter how reasonable they think it is. Fox gets to decide what their license is worth.

|

7/28/2020 2:10 PM
Edited Date/Time: 7/28/2020 2:13 PM

DoctorJD wrote:

Dick move? Sure. but to play devil's advocate, the trademark is owned by Fox and Slik is making a profit off of it. If you're making Nike shirts in your basement and selling them online don't you think there'd be a lawyer knocking at your door at some point?

As cool as their product is (and yes, it fills a market void), you can't use someone elses logo and make a profit off of it unless you have licensed that right.

20mmrain wrote:

Agreed... But from the side of Slik it sounds like they tried to make an offer to them. Now we'll have to take their word that it was fair, but it sounds as if they tried to do the right thing as soon as they were notified.

Falcon wrote:

Slik doesn't get to make an offer, no matter how reasonable they think it is. Fox gets to decide what their license is worth.

Understood but the conversation has to start somewhere. And from the impression I got, it didn't seem like there was any communication coming from Fox, let alone how much it was worth to them.
Logically and legally speaking here .. Fox is in the right. If I look at it from just those parameters then yes I would side with fox
However, I am also interjecting a bit of emotion into this and it was a dick move. Especially since it didn't seem to be an issue for many years.

|

7/28/2020 3:45 PM

20mmrain wrote:

Agreed... But from the side of Slik it sounds like they tried to make an offer to them. Now we'll have to take their word that it was fair, but it sounds as if they tried to do the right thing as soon as they were notified.

Falcon wrote:

Slik doesn't get to make an offer, no matter how reasonable they think it is. Fox gets to decide what their license is worth.

20mmrain wrote:

Understood but the conversation has to start somewhere. And from the impression I got, it didn't seem like there was any communication coming from Fox, let alone how much it was worth to them.
Logically and legally speaking here .. Fox is in the right. If I look at it from just those parameters then yes I would side with fox
However, I am also interjecting a bit of emotion into this and it was a dick move. Especially since it didn't seem to be an issue for many years.

It's hard to agree on something if you violated their license for many years. Not the best starting point and Slik was 100% aware of what they are doing and that one day this could happen.

Honestly, coming from creative industry, I always though Slik (and similar businesses) must have some great deals with these companies such as RS or Fox, or otherwise running business like that must be a pure madness. Well I was wrong.

|

7/28/2020 4:18 PM

Falcon wrote:

Slik doesn't get to make an offer, no matter how reasonable they think it is. Fox gets to decide what their license is worth.

20mmrain wrote:

Understood but the conversation has to start somewhere. And from the impression I got, it didn't seem like there was any communication coming from Fox, let alone how much it was worth to them.
Logically and legally speaking here .. Fox is in the right. If I look at it from just those parameters then yes I would side with fox
However, I am also interjecting a bit of emotion into this and it was a dick move. Especially since it didn't seem to be an issue for many years.

Kusa wrote:

It's hard to agree on something if you violated their license for many years. Not the best starting point and Slik was 100% aware of what they are doing and that one day this could happen.

Honestly, coming from creative industry, I always though Slik (and similar businesses) must have some great deals with these companies such as RS or Fox, or otherwise running business like that must be a pure madness. Well I was wrong.

You know what... You make a great argument to be honest. Legally speaking. And I agree that from the perspective I don't really have a leg to stand on.
In this instance though this just feels wrong and I disagree with Foxes motion. It almost comes across as child that doesn't want their toy until they see how much fun another kid is having with it. Then they want it back.

I get it.. if it goes any further (like to court) fox will win. But I still disagree with it.

Good argument man!

|

7/28/2020 4:19 PM

Falcon wrote:

Slik doesn't get to make an offer, no matter how reasonable they think it is. Fox gets to decide what their license is worth.

20mmrain wrote:

Understood but the conversation has to start somewhere. And from the impression I got, it didn't seem like there was any communication coming from Fox, let alone how much it was worth to them.
Logically and legally speaking here .. Fox is in the right. If I look at it from just those parameters then yes I would side with fox
However, I am also interjecting a bit of emotion into this and it was a dick move. Especially since it didn't seem to be an issue for many years.

Kusa wrote:

It's hard to agree on something if you violated their license for many years. Not the best starting point and Slik was 100% aware of what they are doing and that one day this could happen.

Honestly, coming from creative industry, I always though Slik (and similar businesses) must have some great deals with these companies such as RS or Fox, or otherwise running business like that must be a pure madness. Well I was wrong.

You know what... You make a great argument to be honest. Legally speaking. And I agree that from the perspective I don't really have a leg to stand on.
In this instance though this just feels wrong and I disagree with Foxes motion. It almost comes across as child that doesn't want their toy until they see how much fun another kid is having with it. Then they want it back.

I get it.. if it goes any further (like to court) fox will win. But I still disagree with it. Which I get you can't really logically debate that. But that's just the way I see it

You make a good point man!

|

7/28/2020 7:32 PM

I read the other comments so far and the reality is this: what it "feels" like doesn't make something that is wrong right.

I've been a customer of Slik for years now (luckily for Rockshox decals) and they have been doing a great service for us non-professional non-sponsored "we just like riding our bikes and love customizing them with stickers we can't make for ourselves" type of people. But no matter how your feelings are or what you "think" is right, Fox bringing the legality of the situation is as clear as can be.

It's their IP. It's their trademarks.

Personally I wish that they just let it go because the service Slik is doing benefits customers who already paid for a bike that is equipped with Fox hardware (so in effect they bought Fox products as part of their bike purchase) and if anything it's "bonus exposure' for Fox since the custom decals make Fox shocks stand out from a sea of identical plain forks you see every day.

But emotions aside, you have to also accept the reality that there's a point to trademarks, and considering Slik has been around for years now and what they charge for decals, I'm sure they made a decent amount of profit. Them saying "We tried to open a dialogue, we made a generous offer; we were quickly turned away" is in reality a small attempt to shift any blame or liability away from the fact that they knew they were using someone else's trademarked logos for their decals. They knew they were charging people for the decals. And they had no problem continuing to do what they do without giving the original trademark/IP holder a cut of the profits until someone at Fox decided "whoa... not anymore pal" and here we are.

All that said, I still signed the petition though. Not because I think they "have a right" to continue using the trademarks of another company to earn a profit. I signed because I feel like Fox should take a step back and consider that it's not really hurting them for someone to make custom decals of their logos for the MTB community.

|

Bike of the Day: http://bit.ly/rainesupreme
Bike Check #2 (sold): http://bit.ly/raine_mp29
Bike Check #3: TBA

7/28/2020 8:30 PM

Raine wrote:

I read the other comments so far and the reality is this: what it "feels" like doesn't make something that is wrong right.

I've been a customer of Slik for years now (luckily for Rockshox decals) and they have been doing a great service for us non-professional non-sponsored "we just like riding our bikes and love customizing them with stickers we can't make for ourselves" type of people. But no matter how your feelings are or what you "think" is right, Fox bringing the legality of the situation is as clear as can be.

It's their IP. It's their trademarks.

Personally I wish that they just let it go because the service Slik is doing benefits customers who already paid for a bike that is equipped with Fox hardware (so in effect they bought Fox products as part of their bike purchase) and if anything it's "bonus exposure' for Fox since the custom decals make Fox shocks stand out from a sea of identical plain forks you see every day.

But emotions aside, you have to also accept the reality that there's a point to trademarks, and considering Slik has been around for years now and what they charge for decals, I'm sure they made a decent amount of profit. Them saying "We tried to open a dialogue, we made a generous offer; we were quickly turned away" is in reality a small attempt to shift any blame or liability away from the fact that they knew they were using someone else's trademarked logos for their decals. They knew they were charging people for the decals. And they had no problem continuing to do what they do without giving the original trademark/IP holder a cut of the profits until someone at Fox decided "whoa... not anymore pal" and here we are.

All that said, I still signed the petition though. Not because I think they "have a right" to continue using the trademarks of another company to earn a profit. I signed because I feel like Fox should take a step back and consider that it's not really hurting them for someone to make custom decals of their logos for the MTB community.

Well said!

|

7/29/2020 6:39 AM

If you were the owner (or one of the owners) at Fox you'd likely not feel too disposed to be kind to a company that was stealing your IP and graphic design work that you had paid for and were then selling it at a profit... Fox is well within their rights to tell Slik to get lost. You don't get to steal from a company and then offer to pay them for the same product you were just stealing like it's no big deal.

If it was me and I noticed this, realising this was a good market segment, I would make Slik stop and then ether make custom decals in house for profit, or sell the rights to another third party - I would absolutely not imply that stealing my IP was acceptable and 'no big deal' by opening a working relationship with the company that was doing the stealing. Slik seemed like a cool company, and the product they offer is good quality, but when a 'cool' company is doing something wrong, it's still wrong.

Personally knowing that Slik are likely using Rockshox, Marzochhi (also owned by Fox and Slik are continuing to supply these, despite knowing that Fox would likely have a problem with it - dick move) etc. without paying for the use of the IP I won't be buying anything from them.

|

7/29/2020 1:16 PM

https://www.change.org/p/fox-factory-ltd-help-slik-graphics-offer-fox-decals/u/27409978?cs_tk=Ao1YEa--_I5zAXPJJV8AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvJ0Wkx1g77ev7ujDDkbOThE%3D&utm_campaign=288f022c4c3149338f7f926c6d523314&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs


The team at Fox were incredibly sympathetic and expressed that their plan all along has been to partner with select aftermarket decal manufacturers and that Slik was always at the top of their list, however, an internal miscommunication on their part led to the unfortunate situation that occurred. They are enthusiastic to find a solution with Slik and we have arranged a follow-up discussion next week. We are going to continue with the hopes of a swift agreement so that we can get back to delivering what you need.

"Miscommunication"
|

Where the white women at?

7/29/2020 1:36 PM

LOL how the "enthusiasm to find a solution with Slik" came only after the backlash...typical big corp backtrack.

This topic is done... now we can just let them sort it out so peeps can buy decals again.

|

Bike of the Day: http://bit.ly/rainesupreme
Bike Check #2 (sold): http://bit.ly/raine_mp29
Bike Check #3: TBA