Month: April 2006

I emailed Pacific Cycle, parent company of Schwinn Scooters for a comment on TNG’s lawsuit against Schwinn. Here was the response from Mo Moorman, Pacific Cycle’s Director of Marketing and Public Relations:

Pacific Cycle has no comment regarding ongoing litigation, except that we are surprised and disappointed by these claims. We feel the claims have absolutely no merit and intend to defend vigorously. Pacific Cycle stands by the quality of its products and its relationships with its OEM partners.

You may find it worthwhile to review a variety of scooter OEM’s Web sites to note the similarities between their catalog’s standard, stock models and scooters distributed in the U.S. and around the world.

Fair enough, and we’ve noted that there are hundreds of US importers selling the same handful of Chinese-made scooter models (most commonly based on the Yamaha Vino design) under different brand names. Perhaps CMSI has written off smaller fly-by-night importers as being not worth worrying about, whereas a well-known name like Schwinn is a much bigger threat. And again, the lawlessness of the Chinese business frontier will certainly cloud this case– TNG probably has little recourse against their Chinese suppliers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, the Yamaha settlement last week was an interesting precedent. Perhaps Yamaha will parlay their trademark victory into more lawsits against US distributors of Vino clones, if so, both TNG and Schwinn could be looking at even bigger problems.