Talk:Mad Dogg Athletics/Archive 1

Removal Of Contents / Undo

Please, do not remove any content without stating proper reason. This is against the Wikipedia rules. If you feel that any statement is questionable feel free to use Template:Refimprove where there are insufficient inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Give a chance to improve the article instead of bulk removal of data you deem questionable for any reason.

Content you have removed seems to be supported by other sources so I don't see any reason why would you do that. Judging by what you have done: removing all the unfavorable contents and adding text that was copied from official commercial pages (which are created for brand/product consumers containing marketing stuff and not necessarily the truth) then it seems you are trying to promote the MDA/Spinning brand. Please note that Wikipedia is not the right place for this.

Thank you for your understanding and following rules. --Filein 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed most of the trademark and controversy business as being blatantly slanted in tone and nearly all based on original research. JNW (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

4 JNW Longest Trademark Pending in Czech Republic

Hello JNW,

I found your contributions very effective. And I have learned few things about rules for which I thank you.

Although can you explain more about your comment "original research with a pov intent; which noticeboard would you prefer, since this is problematic on several levels?"

The problem text I wanted to add:

It showed to be very difficult for Mad Dogg Athletics to register word trademark "SPINNING" in some countries. For example in Czech Republic the "SPINNING" trademark is being in state of published application for almost twelve years without being accepted by Czech Industrial Property Office due to very strong opposition of various Czech subjects including initially Czech Industrial Property Office itself.

I happened to know that this is really the longest-pending trademark application in Czech Republic. I don't see it problematic and I find it quite interesting and simple fact that is indisputable available to anyone in any official TM database that includes Czech Republic (which includes all official databases in EU now). Please, tell me more why you think what you think.

This was kind of balancing of the existing text that you happened to overlook which claims they have trademarks and something they call "family of trademarks" in 80 countries which is not supported by any sources currently present in the article. Plus I think that actually any resource saying "Meet the Company That Trademarked the Word 'Spin'" is unreliable because this claim is inaccurate and/or incomplete because I don't know what country does it apply to. This is a popular statement, not a reliable source.

I think that when somebody says "I have trademark XY" then it must be accompanied by "registered for YZ" or we should allow information that says "but it is not valid for AB". Don't you think? You know, the law is territorial thing so if you fight for better sources then I suggest to make the original statement more accurate and I will agree on removal of my aforementioned statement trying to clarify the "universal trademark validity" implied in "Mad Dogg Athletics owns the trademarks "Spin", "Spinner", and "Spinning" and family of related trademarks for spinning (exercise) programs and exercise equipment in over 80 countries.". BTW I really doubt this claim is true so I will remove it... You can re-add it if you find some reliable and complete sources.

--Filein 18:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jan Filein, the text you wish to add was not supported by the source you provided. What's problematic is the history of edit warring here, where under the rationale of attempting to keep promotional content out you've substituted it with unacceptable and pointed original research (WP:NOR) with conclusions reached through synthesis of sources, per WP:SYNTHESIS; see the version that you authored and reverted to [1]. The above phrasing, It showed to be very difficult for Mad Dogg Athletics to register word trademark "SPINNING" in some countries and without being accepted by Czech Industrial Property Office due to very strong opposition of various Czech subjects is problematic; that it's interesting is your opinion, and appears to reflect a personal interest in negative spin here--have any reliable sources made reference to this? I'm hoping we can leave this as close to a pared-down and neutral version as possible. JNW (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi JNW, thanks for thorough-full explanation. I am still new here so I found your answer very helpful. Yeah, that warring gets on my nerves (which could influence my neutral point of view). Since you have given pretty plausible explanation for your actions I will not try to get back my previous edits. About the reliable sources for my last edit: I wanted to add the end part and I didn't because I have noticed that you have reverted it in the mean time. That part was stating "...due to very strong opposition of various Czech subjects including initially Czech Industrial Property Office itself." I thought last two links are supporting the statement very well. One being the list of oppositions submitted by companies over the years (quite impressive by the first sight), other being the written decision of Industrial Property Office to do not accept the trademark application (later challenged by MDA). If you will deem this as sufficient, please, add it back. If you find it insufficient then leave it as it is. I will remove the "neutrality" template as I don't think we are having a dispute anymore, do we? Thank you. --Filein 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would let it go, and leave the template for the moment, as I may request further eyes on this. JNW (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• OKi, I will leave the template there. About the other template "unreliable sources" - can you be more specific? Maybe I can improve it and find more reliable sources. Which ones you think are not reliable? --Filein 20:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Trademark Relevance

• The removed ruling in case of "SPINNING", "SPIN", "SPINNER" tm case of Batavus is from Netherlands
• The other ruling pertaining to "SPINNING & FITNESS" is from Czech Republic

I am sure that those information relate to company. Certainly if judge rules that trademarks are generic then it matters a lot and it surely belongs to company's "Trademarks" section. Also citizens of both countries would disagree that their respective countries are irrelevant. Last but not least both countries are members of shared EU internal market which may have implications for the whole EU.

--Filein 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• IMO either the Trademark section is important for the company description or it should be removed all together. If it is important then trademark disputes are clearly relevant information. So far it looks like Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. is known exclusively for their trademarks. BTW what was the reason to create this article? It is not clear from the current state. We are going to end up with super minimalistic article of one or two sentences if we keep this pace... --Danny.boston (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Verysane you should not have removed the facts again. It was supposed to be discussed first. You are just continuing the warring here. --Danny.boston (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mad Dogg Athletics' principal business is trademark licensing. Any information pertaining to the MDA's core business is relevant. Contents in question includes information that can be hard to find through other common sources. Leave TM disputes in the article. --72.5.27.52 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mad Dogg Athletics is not in the business of trademark licensing. Mad Dogg Athletics provides fitness education, they manufacture fitness equipment and own various fitness brands. www.maddogg.com They own all their trademarks related to their Spinning brand and the information that continues to be added by people in the Czech Republic is irrelevant and should not be included here. It is biased information and if I'm corrected, information on Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. The trademark information related to the Czech Republic should be removed. The trademarks Spin, Spinning and Spinner are valid trademarks and have not been revoked anywhere in the world. The information related to the Batavus case is incorrect information. See the following press release pertaining to the Batavus case. http://www.prlog.org/10732690-mad-dogg-athletics-inc-settles-spinning-trademark-suit-with-batavus-bv.html The Czech person Jan Filein is a friend of a woman who owns a company in the Czech Republic involved in an ongoing lawsuit pertaining to her misuse of the Spinning trademarks in the Czech Republic. Due to the fact that the information Jan continues to put here is biased and much of it eroneous that he will continue to add, I suggest this page called Mad Dogg Athletics be deleted altogether. User: Verysane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verysane (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The referenced ruling of Hague's court[2] is genuine and it really says that trademarks has become generic. It clearly states that "spinning" and "spinner" are common words in Dutch language. I don't understand how can you call it "biased" or "incorrect information". This is the court decision - it must be unbiased and correct! MDA obviously paid EUR 21.000 and didn't appeal (there would be follow up decision otherwise). Trying to undermine the Hague's court by pointing to a press release written by your company[3] is beyond my understanding. But after reading the ruling I now do understand your dedication to remove it from the article even for the price of removing the whole article! There are some serious things in this ruling. --Danny.boston (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you say your business is not trademark licensing[4] and on the other hand you sue people for not purchasing your licenses[5]? Honestly, I haven't seen any equipment branded "Mad Dogg Athletics" in my life and I even failed to Google it. All equipment is trademark-based. Considering you are the "biggest" fitness company - I must admit I've never heard about Mad Dogg Athletics before. Please don't speculate who I am friend with. Don't try to discredit me that way. Don't call information I put here biased or erroneous. It is neither. That information about cancelled "Spinning & Fitness" trademark and Batavus ruling is nothing but verifiable truth. --Filein 02:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Verysane in your post you wave with press release[6] and if I can cite directly from it: "MDA has licensed the right to use its trademarks to such noteworthy corporations as Nike®, Star Trac® and Gatorade® and...". How does it come you are not in licensing business? Verysane, information you put out keeps being inconsistent and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.5.27.52 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Important Enough?

Seriously, this article has 8 sentences, 9 referenced resources, "neutrality" and "unreliability" templates and editors willing to reduce it even further by another 50%... Is it worth to have this article here at all? IMHO The current article does not describe a company that is important enough to be on Wikipedia. The world is full of trademark owners who lease their intellectual property to apparel and equipment manufacturers... --Danny.boston (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Danny, the company information that was previously here is continuously getting changed by someone in the Czech Republic. This is merely a page for the Company describing who they are. The information that keeps getting added by this Czech vandal, is irrelevant to who Mad Dogg Athletics is as a company. This person who keeps adding and changing information in the Czech Republic is obviously a very devious person who has an ax to grind for some reason or another. This page is merely informative as to who the company is and what they do as a business. It should stay here and it should be locked so this person in the Czech Republic can no longer put opinionated and irrelevant, non-factual information that is slandering to a company. --(Verysane) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verysane (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I understand what you say. I am merely asking if an article that (after cleanup by you, people from Mad Dogg Athletics, Drmies and JNW) consists of the History - 1 sentence - and the Trademark section - 2 sentences - really describes something important enough to have it hosted on Wikipedia. It obviously should not have made it through creation review process. And you claim that trademark section is really not so relevant to who Mad Dogg Athletics is. This leaves us only with one sentence in the History section... I think this article should be removed from Wikipedia. --Danny.boston (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think that this article meets several criteria for deletion. I have requested the removal and notified the author. --Danny.boston (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

When the article was created, it was factual information about the company and the brand. Just as Coca Cola has a company/brand page, Mad Dogg Athletics has a brand page and any brand owner should be allowed to put factual information on their own page without a random individual coming along and adding irrelevant information and deleting factual information. This page was created by an unbiased person with relative information about the company which is very important as this is the company are the creators of the group indoor cycling phenomenon. This is informative and interesting information. This person in the Czech Republic Jan Filein repeatedly adds erroneous information to the page that is not factual and slanderous. Again, as I've just looked at this page, the same information I have deleted multiple times due to its irrelevance to who the company is, has again been added back to the page by Jan Filein. Jan should be banned from being allowed to make any sort of irrelevant additions to wikipedia pages such as this one. ((User:Verysane)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verysane (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Since companies are not allowed to WP:OWN their pages, 'random individuals coming along' and adding information is exactly what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. Re: your accusation of slander, read WP:NLT immediately. Legal threats are taken very seriously on Wikipedia can lead to swift blocks on the threatening party. - MrOllie (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article locked

As Verysane requested above, this article is now locked from editing until this dispute has been resolved. It seems to me that there are two points that need a consensus:

• Are information and sources about trademark disputes relevant to this article?
• Should the article be deleted, and if so, on what grounds?

Please work it out.

If needed, someone should post a policy-based deletion nomination at WP:AFD. I can unlock the article temporarily for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish to AFD this article. When I accepted it at AFC it was a factual stub briefly describing the nature of the subject and its activities. It was supported by a few mainstream news sources (including the New York Times and the Boston Globe) thus it was in compliance with the notability standard for companies. Since then it has degenerated into a messy combination of WP:Attack and WP:Advert. The main editors responsible for the degeneration appear to be a representative of the subject company and a representative of another company that is engaged in at least one current and one previous legal dispute with the subject company. The editing both parties have engaged in constitutes a violation of the WP:Battleground rule. IMHO it is in the best interest of the English Wikipedia that this article be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out that instead of deletion, locking the article also solves the battleground problem, because neither party can edit it. They must post {{editprotected}} requests that must be reviewed by administrators before any edits are accepted. If the subject meets WP:CORP, it seems unlikely that the community will agree to delete it. I'll wait a bit and see what others have to say. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I declare that I am not a representative of any company nor I am paid nor employed by any company involved in any legal dispute. I first heard about Mad Dogg Athletics 4 years ago when I accidentally stumbled on the note by Petr Novák, chairman of Wikimedia ČR, on Czech Spinning discussion page. It stated that Wikimedia ČR was instructed by the trademark owner's lawyers to modify the contents to emphasize their trademark... Later I learned that the company is MDA and they really claim ownership of "spinning", "spinner" and "spin" words and claim to even invent "indoor cycling" itself[7]. I knew enough from history of cycling to know it is an complete nonsense. I started to learn more about the whole problem domain and I have learned quite a few interesting facts that I felt are indeed noteworthy. This is the only motivation behind my contributions (plus bicycles, law and history is my thing). I feel that it would be wrong to remove the article as I see it as an attempt to opportunistically manipulate the WP contents. MDA created promotional article and now they don't like it and they try to remove it. I don't think it is right. --Filein 15:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 April 2014

The second paragraph of the "Trademarks" section contains two bare external links that should be reformatted as proper references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)