Recently in crafts Category
March 8, 2010
We turn to the experts. So, the Dear Rich Staff asked Greg Aharonian, a professional patent searcher (and author and patent gadfly) what he thought about the patent's validity (and it looks like it would be a tough challenge). Greg reports: "I can observe a few things.
First, the applicants submitted a fair amount of prior art, both patents
and non-patents, more than most patents, so it looks like the inventors
were seriously pursuing the patent. They submitted multiple examples of
a close piece of prior art, "Tag Along Tags blankets," and still got
the patent issued. And they cite 'Taggly,' a toy that
has tags, which they argue doesn't anticipate a blanket, but is otherwise
prior art.
So a primary examiner issued them the patent - twice (the patent and the
reissue). So circa ten years ago, their invention was considered
non-obvious enough to be granted a patent."
Would their patent hold up with today's obviousness standard
of "what is predictable" from KSR? Applying that newer standard, Greg says, "Is a Taggie blanket a predictable variation of
the Taggly taggy toy? Well, if you squish the toy flat, you have a
blanket-shaped object with tags - the Taggies patent. Seems a predictable
variation to me.
Or not? The Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has made a mess of
things. A few PATNEWS ago, I mentioned a recent CAFC decision where
two judges ruled that it is obvious to go from a Marilyn Monroe card
with non-memorabilia item attached - to a baseball card with a memorabilia
item attached. Yet Judge Rader, the next chief justice of the CAFC,
dissented, saying it wasn't obvious, and that his two colleagues were
basically .... idiots. I have no idea how these same three judges would
rule on the Taggies patent. And no one else could predict their decision
as well, because obviousness caselaw is such a mess.
So is the Taggies patent obvious in light of the cited art (or anything
similar I could find in a search)? I would rather try to achieve world
peace." Thanks Greg, and we're sure if you applied the same skillset you use in busting patents to world peace, the world would be a better place.
February 12, 2010
Pillow Talk
Getting a trademark. Seeking trademark protection for your logo and name is probably a good idea if you want to stop someone from using similar content. Of course, the Dear Rich Staff reminds you that to obtain that protection you must have used the marks prior to competitors.
The young woman in the photo -- my sister, BJ -- grew up to run a thriving crafts business -- Barbini. She's since switched to cell phones.
Find out more about copyright law with my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
August 25, 2009
Strike Out: Crafts Artist v. MLB
We could just leave the answer like that -- and you're free to get up and move around the blog if you like -- but your question touches on two sensitive issues for the Dear Rich Staff: (1) How come nobody bought the wonderful book we wrote about crafts law? (2) Why don't we like baseball?
Why Nobody Bought Our Crafts Law Book
The Dear Rich staff has written a lot of books and one of our favorites is the now out-of-print Crafts Law. It was friendly, comprehensive and so helpful. But it didn't sell very well. We tried all kinds of things: promotions at crafts fairs, talking to crafts artists mano-a-mano, and writing columns for a crafts magazine. If you had bought this book and looked for the answer you would have found this helpful excerpt:
"Using trademarks in crafts products. Proceed with caution if you're using trademarks as part of your crafts art -- for example, producing a fabric with a repeating image of the American Express card or producing earrings that feature the Apple computer logo. You may be able to argue that your use is informational and is protected by the First Amendment. However, this argument may be a loser if it looks like you're trading off the success of a trademark rather than commenting upon it. For example, a company that sold trading cards of collectible cars was prohibited from reproducing Chrysler trademarks because Chrysler had already licensed similar collectible products. (Chrysler Corp. v. Newfield Publications Inc., 880 F. Supp. 504 (E.D. MI 1995).) Be aware that making a First Amendment argument means that you've already triggered a company's ire, and you will have to deal with the consequences. This isn't to discourage you from speaking out against corporate branding, just to alert you to the potential morass that awaits if you do."
Anyway... we're not giving up on the crafts world. We're going to improve our crafts book and come out with an all-new version next spring ... so stay tuned!
Why We Don't Like Baseball
We've tried. We enjoyed playing it back in the day. We still try to fit in, often repeating newspaper headlines at lunch meetings -- "I hear Beltram's aiming to rejoin the Mets" or "The Giants better look inward for an opener against the Dodgers." But we lack the honest enthusiasm required. Why? Perhaps it's our upbringing. Perhaps it's our fear of stadiums. Perhaps we're concerned about the environmental impact of all those wooden bats. In any case, we'll look into to it and get back to you.
To learn more about trademark infringement, take a look at my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
