Investigating Patentability: MST3K Invention Exchange

If you're of a certain age and  specific interest--meaning over 35 (mostly) and into nerd stuff--you've likely seen at least one episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While primarily about riffing on exceptionally bad movies, there are interludes with the show's characters. Sometimes, they feature regularly occurring bits, like the invention exchange. This bit was most common in the earlier seasons with Joel Hodgson.

Of course, none of the inventions are remotely serious, but they do offer a fun way to investigate the aspects of patentability. 

Patentability is, at its most basic, whether or not an invention is eligible for a patent. And, again at a basic level, patentability is determined by three qualities: new, useful, and non-obvious. There are other rules, like nothing that would be better categorized as another kind of IP, nothing illegal or "offensive to public morality", no natural phenomena, or laws of nature. But we can typically stick to the three qualifications here.

New: it can't be something previously disclosed. So if you invent a new machine, and then publish an article about its details, share them on social media, or make them available at a conference, it's not new. Keep you inventions secret! Also, if you spill the secrets or someone comes up with the same/similar concept and files for a patent first, it's not patentable, because patents are granted to the first to file.

Useful: is must have a purpose. The purpose does not need to further humankind of advance technology, it can include fun or novelty. So perpetual motion machines are out, but a scuba diving kit modified for a dog isn't.

Non-obvious: it can't be obvious. That means that a "person with ordinary skill in the art" (the technical term for a person familiar with the field of the invention, or who works in that field) could not have immediately or easily conceived of the idea. Basic improvements or simple changes to previous inventions are therefore not patentable, but an alteration that makes a significant difference in its function would be. 

With those defined, let's look at an invention exchange and comment on their patentability!

Ok, we have an air freshener mobile and a baby teether/Alien face hugger. I'd say that both may once have been patentable. Why? The air freshener mobile has, to the best of my knowledge, not been created before this; unfortunately if neither character applied for a patent it's too old now. It's also very useful! Babies make lots of stinky smells and mobiles are a common baby product. And it definitely isn't obvious, because it's just a little too weird to be obvious. As for the teether/face hugger, that meets the same new (at the time) requirement. It is also very useful because it's good for baby and very entertaining for adults, meeting at least the novelty standard. Finally, it's obvious, in my opinion, but again probably because it's just so weird. 

Let's do another!

The "Chinderwear" is maybe patentable, but wouldn't be a strong patent. Ignoring the fact that none of these count as new anymore (which I will from here on out), it may not be considered useful. Why? Because the chin butt isn't something people typically want to cover. As for non-obvious, if we really considered cleft chins as butts, it would be too obvious. So the usefulness of the invention negates its non-obviousness. The Rat Pack chess set falls prey to a rule that isn't covered by the three basics above. Using name, image, or likeness of a person requires direct authorization if they're living; for a deceased person, if it is already being used in other intellectual property (I will assume that's the case for such well-known people) then it's already owned and would also require some kind of permission. Furthermore, it's a little obvious. This isn't a strong case of being too obvious, but the change to the chess set is so simple that it may be marketable but not patentable.

One more?

This clip inspired this post, so I had to include it. The super schnozz isn't patentable because, as was pointed out by Joel and the robots, it's not useful. At all! I don't think it could even count for novelty. Perhaps it could claim a design patent, but not utility. It's also kind of obvious, because it's just a big nose, and that's an obvious thing to make. The same problems plague the big head: not useful, pretty obvious. I'm sure someone has before decided to make a big head, maybe for one of those giant foam hats, so it probably isn't new, either. Stick to the baby items, gentlemen.

Yes, I was feeling a bit silly when I came up with this topic. And as it's almost winter recess, it's a good time to be silly.

Trademarked Chocolate of Kazakhstan

I've been a very bad blogger lately. I apologize. However, things have been very busy for both the PTRC and other aspects of my job, so I hope you'll forgive me in the interest of enjoying the fruits of those labors.

Meanwhile, here's a post I've been planning for some time but just haven't gotten around to composing.

A Kelley Center student worker from Kazakhstan visited home over summer break and returned with a gift for my boss and I: a national chocolate bar.  It was extremely delicious and unfortunately has not reproduced itself.

As I was eating it, I happened to notice that it had a trademarked name, and that piqued my interest. After all, I know nothing about trademarks from Kazakhstan! And it's always fun to look up a trademark, especially for a particularly attractive design. The striking packaging is based on the country's flag.

Chocolate of Kazakhstan! Famous and delicious

The brand appears to be Paxat, and I'd like to find a registration for this specific appearance--the font and oval around it. 

Detail of the brand logo and some other regulatory stuff

I'd also like to try and find something that matches some of these other decorative elements, since they have a registration mark next to them; but I am uncertain if they are just for the name that included or the whole image.

This design motif is one of the parts based on the flag of Kazakhstan, along with the sun and eagle

I found two registrations that appear to match, but neither of them are for a logo or image, just a brand name. Also, one is entirely in Russian and I can't read it, so I must be forced to assume that it matches... It is the right name and is from Kazakhstan, so it seems legit. The other is in English, partially, and has some unrelated goods and services, but it does include among them candies. 

I made a point to look up the Article 6ter Kazakhstan entries--those are basically indicators for states. Read more about them here. For your reference, here's a screenshot of the entry in the 6ter database for the flag:

Article 6ter Database results

Think you can do a better job of finding the trademark? I used WIPO's Global Brand Database. Let me know if you have more success and what you used to find your info!

Desiging Shoe Patents

Some of you may recall how much I love shoes. And some of you may have met me in person, and may know I love shoes from my attire. For those of you who are unaware, I really enjoy shoes.

Unfortunately, I tend to enjoy fun high heeled shoes the most, and occasionally life demands that I must dress "practically", which tends to mean athletic shoes or sensible flats. I wear flats into and out of the office, simply because I know that the nearly mile walk to and from my parking would be disastrous on my heels. I've seen the damage asphalt can cause and rough, broken asphalt is a quick way to to break a heel completely. But what about other times? If a dress code says "sensible" or some other similar, disappointing term?

Last week, in response to my disappointment with an event's sensible dress code suggestion, a coworker joked that she was surprised I didn't have"off-roading" heels. I had that concept stuck in my mind all weekend, and finally did the librarian thing and started searching for some kind of matching concept.

Allow me to explain how shocked I was that among the first set of results was the page for Sneex. Which kind of fit the bill. (Visit the site to understand.)

Now, I had not heard of these on their initial release; despite my love of shoes, I don't really care to follow fashion news closely. That's probably because I know what I like and it isn't always fashionable... like Sneex. I really like these shoes, even though most of the internet seems to think they're a crime against footwear, stilettos and sneakers both. 

But what do these have to do with this blog?

Well, I'm sure you can only imagine my delight when I noticed the product description:

I love shoe patents

That's right, a patented design! Oh, what joy! Shoe patents! 

They have 22 design patents, and most look remarkably similar. I won't list all of them or insert all of them here, but here's a taste: 

Sneex: high heeled sneakers, patented

View the rest of US Patent D1,041,835 here.

Anyway, I'm glad I could share these with you. 

And apologies about my long silence; there are a lot of projects going on that have demanded my attention.

The Mouse Rug

It's kind of fun, when you notice something new on an old item. For example, take a look at something I just recently noticed about my Mouse Rug, a rug-style mouse pad that I received as a gift well over a decade ago. [This was, of course, at a time when more people used a computer mouse and unique mouse pads were still something. After all, some of us still relied on the mechanical model that had an actual ball (taking the ball out and then reassembling the mouse so your parents didn't notice was a great way to make them mad).] It now serves as a trivet, and when I was cleaning it after a spill at dinner, I noticed what it said on the back for the first time:

Underside of the tiny rug replica

That's right, patented worldwide! What a claim. And, as your friendly patent and trademark librarian, I had to find out if this claim was true.

New Orleans IP: Chee Wees

It seems I missed a very important variety of cheese curls back when I blogged about them on Cheese Doodle Day. I can only assume it is because I was looking for doodles rather than curls. 

Are you familiar with the New Orleans favorite, Chee Wees? I certainly was not, until our marketing and communications specialist introduced me just a few days ago. And while my first instinct was to burst into laughter when seeing the name, I soon found myself hoping there was hefty IP backing them up.

Library Cat modeling a bag of bar-b-que Chee Wees

Also, before we begin with the more serious stuff, let me warn you: the bar-b-que (weird spelling, y'all) flavor is a little addicting. I meant to just taste them before writing this, to, I dunno, inspire? But ended up having a hard time putting them down long enough to type.

Delicious Chee Wees

Delicious, delicious Chee Wees

First, the most basic of trademark searches reveals two federal registrations, one live and one dead. The dead registration is for the stylized word mark, first registered (no. 0393362) in 1942, but expired back in 1986. 

The registered stylized word mark, no. 0393362

The plain word mark, however, registered in 1958 (no. 0663902), is still active. I expected the stylized words to be registered, but perhaps this is preferable, as it does not mandate any specific appearance.

What exactly were they doing in the four years between application and existence?!

However, the larger potential IP was for the Elmer's brand, and I was very interested in the mascot mouse (or rat, I guess). I found several marks for Elmer's, but was disappointed to see that none of them included the mouse. What an oversight, in my opinion! That mouse is clearly very strongly tied to the brand. 

Trademark registered since 1954

Nonetheless, the stylized word mark was first registered in 1954 (no. 0596874), and a few variations have emerged since. For example, the addition of New Orleans prompted a new registration in 1970 (no. 0894707). However, that one seems limited to candy, unlike the original, which is both candy and cheese curls. 

Good for candy only, since 1970

But wait! Is there more?

We can't ignore the Limited Edition Juvenile collaboration! It features not only New Orleans artist Juvenile but also super hot snacks! [Whether the heat is referring to temperature of cooking alone, or includes the spiciness, I can't tell. And I won't be sharing today, because a bag of cheese curls for lunch should only happen once a day.] Perhaps this version had some hidden IP.

Library Cat is also very interested in these snacks

It turns out, this is one of the cases where I wish it was clearer why the trademark search returned the results it did. I was unable to find anything that seemed directly connected to the specific snack depicted above, but I found enough results to make me wonder about potential connections.

Not a registered mark: "The Big Cheese of New Orleans"

Unfortunately, I could find no patents in a brief search--not that I expected any. Chances are, Elmer's is too small of a firm to either afford the patents or the research to lead to some kind of patentable food product. A design patent is possible, but I still found nothing.

Visit Fondren soon to taste some Chee Wees!