AL - Simmons Bilt!

[Big J]

Taking a page from Josef Stalin's playbook and airbrushing and rewriting history. Absolutely incredible and brazen.

With respect, I disagree. It's not brazen, it's just stupidity in action. What's the saying? 'Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity'.

Sandy has bank-rolled Alexander Leathers; the premises, equipment, and staff on contracts (all the start up costs). But he hired dishonest criminal idiots to run it, hence the AL name was mud.

IMHO at that point Sandy should have cut his losses, and folded the whole thing. However, hindsight is an exact science. What Sandy has done is weigh up his investments in AL and decided they are too big to write-off, so he has splashed out on the rights to the Simmons Bilt trademark. This could have allowed him to rebrand his operation, and effectively make a new business.

However, by retaining inept idiots who don't understand that the point of rebranding is to get away from the previous brand image, he has allowed those idiots to now tarnish the Simmons Bilt brand on day one!

Since it is clear to me that the people running Simmons Bilt on a day-to-day basis might know how to make a leather jacket at 4am, they certainly have no understanding of business management. This 'new' company is in the hands of someone who doesn't really know what they are doing. How many mistakes will they make, how much money will the company lose, before Sandy realizes that he should have cut his losses as soon as he realized what Will lauder had done.

Even if it wasn't for the whole Will Lauder/Alexander Leathers tainted brand problem, Toohey clearly is well out of his depth ('Here at Alexander Leathers', 'We at Alexander Leathers' on the SB site). Schoolboy error.

 

[Big J]

Oh, my mistake! They use Alexander Leathers 12 times on the Simmons Bilt 'About Us' page; I forgot to check the photo of the Dakota jacket that has the AL logo and Alexander Leathers water-marked on it.

Simmons Bilt name and logo only used 9 times on the same page. Really great re-branding there:eusa_doh:

 

[Otter]

Hey ! Quit giving them tips !

 

[navetsea]

I think it is only normal for transitional period to use both former and new name together, otherwise people who just want to get AL jacket would be confused if no AL trace left on the site. the method can be done more elegantly though.

 

[Big J]

So, here's a question;

Does Alexander Leather/Sandy Alexander actually own the Simmons Bilt name? Or are they just using it? I mean, are they just making Simmons Bilt labels to put in their jackets?
Ken Calder owns the rights to the Aero name, which I understand he legally acquired after the original Aero in Beacon NY shut down (hence Aero in Scotland has the right to use original Aero patterns from the war).
But Simmons Bilt, what's the story on that? From Steve Toohey's 'About Us' disaster, it just looks like they spent a really long time on google searching for a defunct vintage brand name to use. Do they actually have legal right to do so? Who did they buy the name from? Who was the owner of that name before it was sold to AL?

 

[tonypaj]

So, here's a question;

Does Alexander Leather/Sandy Alexander actually own the Simmons Bilt name? Or are they just using it? I mean, are they just making Simmons Bilt labels to put in their jackets?
Ken Calder owns the rights to the Aero name, which I understand he legally acquired after the original Aero in Beacon NY shut down (hence Aero in Scotland has the right to use original Aero patterns from the war).
But Simmons Bilt, what's the story on that? From Steve Toohey's 'About Us' disaster, it just looks like they spent a really long time on google searching for a defunct vintage brand name to use. Do they actually have legal right to do so? Who did they buy the name from? Who was the owner of that name before it was sold to AL?

Just to be precise, that was 7 questions My answer is be a detective, post your findings, and ask Edward.

Often the rights just die after a period, sometimes the rights are just given away, sometimes people do not care. Just imagine how much CERN could have made if they had copyrighted the web.

 

[Big J]

Just to be precise, that was 7 questions My answer is be a detective, post your findings, and ask Edward.

Often the rights just die after a period, sometimes the rights are just given away, sometimes people do not care. Just imagine how much CERN could have made if they had copyrighted the web.

Superfluous is the resident Magnum PI, he's way much better than me at finding out things like, 'facts' and stuff...

 

[Sloan1874]

And what about the photos of jackets taken against an Alexander Leather backdrop?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I think it is only normal for transitional period to use both former and new name together, otherwise people who just want to get AL jacket would be confused if no AL trace left on the site. the method can be done more elegantly though.

I agree, navetsea.
I don't care what they change or how they try and sell themselves now. If no legal probe is going to be directed at whatever/whoever they call themselves now or in the past, then what makes the difference. Perhaps those involved are trial weary and figure the best approach is to put their efforts into how they run their own business rather than pursuing further investigation. Things like this always comes down to: is it worth it..??
Is it really our role here to continually keep watch and criticize every move AL/SB makes? It seems obvious to many of us how underhandedly AL actually came about..but that has been dissected and expressed for all to see in several threads. What's left is to see if AL/SB survives any possible upcoming litigation or harm they caused themselves, and if it's worth it for them to financially carry on.
HD

 

[Big J]

And what about the photos of jackets taken against an Alexander Leather backdrop?

What a messshakeshead

 

[tonypaj]

Superfluous is the resident Magnum PI, he's way much better than me at finding out things like, 'facts' and stuff...

Yep, it's them lawyers... They get in my way all the time, then get mad if I "lawyer" them They're good to have around though, to protect ourselves from ourselves in business. Nobody in this case had good lawyers in place, tho.

So Superfluous, get on the case

 

[handymike]

Perhaps the re-brand and timing of it (pre-trial) is an attempt to shield the company financially, and has little to do with the consumer.

 

[handymike]

Yep, it's them lawyers... They get in my way all the time, then get mad if I "lawyer" them They're good to have around though, to protect ourselves from ourselves in business. Nobody in this case had good lawyers in place, tho.

So Superfluous, get on the case

Ummmm, perhaps you should read the "what I do for a living thread"....
;-)

 

[tonypaj]

Ummmm, perhaps you should read the "what I do for a living thread"....
;-)

He's a lawyer, right? So a good man for the job. As I said, mine protect me in business, I could not make a living without them. But I still "lawyer" them at times

 

[tropicalbob]

What's immediately obvious on the "new" site is that it's a very sloppy job. It seems that only the first paragraphs were rewritten (and they're loaded with spelling, grammatical, stylistic, and punctuation mistakes), and the later paragraphs were simply left as they were: hence all the mentions of Alexander Leathers. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could do such a lazy job on a company's mission statement.

 

[Sloan1874]

I think Tropical Bob's hit the nail on the head there. The re-branding isn't surprising, the half-cocked nature of it is.

 

[tropicalbob]

It really seems a half-hearted effort. A rebranding would involve a fairly clear distinction between old and new, but all we find on the page is a reference to one of many, many jacket manufacturers of the past with no clear idea of what made them notable. The sloppiness mentioned above seems to say, "Well, this is all a load of **** anyway, innit?" I still get a chuckle out of "time-served" craftsmen.

 

[Edward]

Perhaps the re-brand and timing of it (pre-trial) is an attempt to shield the company financially, and has little to do with the consumer.

That wouldn't fly. Same company, jut a different name... in any case, it would be very difficult to move assets around in a way that wasn't traceable and ultimately recoverable - if, indeed, the company felt any need to try and do that. The law takes a dim view of that sort of thing, so I'd like to think it's not relevant here. Really, I think it's just an attempt to try and rebrand and break away from the negative publicity of the Will Lauder connection; whether it will stick is another matter. They do seem to be going about it in a very half-cocked and ill-thought out manner.

 

[ButteMT61]

I think you guys are missing the plan here. If AL/SB act sorta stupid, they can claim they got duped by WL, et al. This is the ignorance defense. They're gonna excel here...

 

[Superfluous]

Superfluous is the resident Magnum PI, he's way much better than me at finding out things like, 'facts' and stuff...

So Superfluous, get on the case

It appears that AL is pursuing trademark rights for the Simmons Bilt name: http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/ctm/simmons+bilt/013714407 .

AL previously obtained two trademarks involving the Alexander Leathers name, both of which have over ten years of remaining validity: http://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/alexander-leather-company-limited-SC432268/

What's immediately obvious on the "new" site is that it's a very sloppy job. It seems that only the first paragraphs were rewritten (and they're loaded with spelling, grammatical, stylistic, and punctuation mistakes), and the later paragraphs were simply left as they were: hence all the mentions of Alexander Leathers. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could do such a lazy job on a company's mission statement.

IMHO, this speaks volumes about the company. How difficult is it to write, and properly proofread, a two paragraph statement that accurately describes the company, and that does not include obvious spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors? This statement is the face of the company . . . it is critically important . . . yet, it is rife with errors. What does this say about AL/SB's attention to detail and quality control? This company is a mess.

AL invested huge sums of money to create and market the AL brand throughout the world. Less than three years later, and with over ten years remaining on the AL trademarks, AL has abandoned its prior efforts and its huge investment, and is endeavoring to reinvent and rebrand itself. AL is attempting to escape its past and disassociate itself from its dubious roots; and, in so doing, to lure new customers who would never purchase from AL given its spurious history. Is this type of rebranding an honest form of business, or is it inherently deceitful? Should a company be permitted to escape its past, and sell to new consumers unfamiliar with the company's dubious origins, or should a company be required to own and live with its spurious origins and history? Are future customers being deceived? I am merely asking the questions.