Top

Schwinn & TNG links linked?

April 4, 2006

We’re still getting a lot of hits from Schwinn’s link, and we just noticed that they’ve borrowed more than design cues from TNG:
Schwinn Scooters’ “Extras” Page
TNG Motor Scooters’ “Extras” page
Which got us thinking “maybe they’re actually related somehow” but Whois records and Google searches provide no indication that CMSI (TNG’s parent company in Washington state) is involved in Schwinn Scooters (a division of Pacific Cycle who own Schwinn, Mongoose and GT, based near the Pacific in Madison, WI). I’ve emailed TNG to hopefully find out more.
(UPDATE: 4-18-06: It turns out there’s much more to the story.)

Comments

2 Responses to “Schwinn & TNG links linked?”

  1. Those Darn McCabesNo Gravatar on April 6th, 2006 11:30am

    There’s something that bugs the hell out of me about the Schwinn scooters. I mean, I know that Schwinn has gone down hill for years and that they’ve been making stuff over seas since the 70s, but there’s some extra bad about seeing the Schwinn name on crappy scooters.
    Dave
    Why have I become such a miltant nativist here?

  2. 2strokebuzz » Blog Archive » TNG files charges against Schwinn Scooters on April 17th, 2006 11:00pm

    [...] As 2strokebuzz noted a couple weeks ago, the new Scwhinn scooters bear more than a casual similarity to the TNG Venice and Milano models, and as promised, we’ve dug a little deeper into the situation and our findings are rather startling. Tom Lynott, president of CMSI, makers of the TNG scooters, had no comment on April 4th, but a source outside CMSI later confirmed that CMSI were already underway in seeking legal action against Pacific Cycle, the parent company of Schwinn, Mongoose, and GT bicycles. The complaint, which alleges that Pacific Cycle effectively “stole” TNG’s product and business model after a proposed collaboration was abandoned, was officially submitted to the United States District Court in Seattle on April 6, (two days after our original story), listing six charges against Pacific Cycle: False Designation of Origin, Violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, Common Law Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Contract, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, and Breach of Contract. In the complaint, CMSI alleges that Pacific Cycle requested a meeting with CMSI in January 2004 regarding cooperation between the two companies. A meeting was held in February at which time CMSI revealed their Chinese supplier, business model, and marketing plans to Pacific. According to the court papers, Pacific then notified CMSI they were pursuing a “different direction.” CMSI later discovered that Pacific had persuaded CMSI’s Chinese manufacturer to violate their contract with CMSI, and instead manfacture the same scooters for Pacific, to be sold under the Scwhinn name (while no longer selling them to CMSI). [...]

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bottom