Flowbee: As Seen on TV (in 1989)

In a recent conversation with my husband, I mentioned that I needed to give some of my plants a "haircut", but I wasn't sure how to accomplish it. He facetiously recommended I use a Flowbee, and I responded with something along the lines of "Duh whuh?"

He proceeded to try to explain the concept of some kind of vacuum cleaner hair cutter device to me, without the aid of visuals, in a rare moment we were both without our phones. Very little was clarified except that it was fairly well known in the 1980s, mostly through TV advertisements. 

Later, once we were again fully plugged in and had phones available, he showed me a few YouTube videos--including this one I can't embed--that made sense of things, including some 80s and 90s hairstyles. Equipped with a better understanding of a Flowbee, I finally got the joke. But my mind was, of course, drawn to speculating on its IP.

The vacuum hair hero; image taken from flowbee.com

Despite my husband's immediate assurances, I wondered if it was patented.

Turns out, the guy behind the Flowbee™ has his IP locked down.

I'm telling you, not even Rice is this careful about international coverage. 

Yes, it also has trademarks, and this is the official specimen on record

Rick Hunts, the inventor of the Flowbee™, obtained his initial patent for "Hair Clipper" in 14 different jurisdictions, likely through this WIPO patent application. The patent was granted in at least 7 of those, including Germany (twice, potentially reflecting the geopolitical status in the 1980s), Australia, Canada, and the European Union. The US Patent for the Hair Clipper, US 4,679,322, was granted in July of 1987... shortly before I was born. 

There are a few other Flowbee™-related patents that were filed and granted later. These, I presume, are for improvements or new accoutrements, judging by the names "Grooming Attachment for Vacuum-Drawn Clippers", "Vacuum-Drawn Hair Clipper", and "Vacuum-Powered Hair Cutting Guide". All were filed within a few years after the initial hair clipper, but seemingly only in the US. Who knew a vacuum-enabled hair clipper could have so many improvements?

Hunts also owns a design patent in the US for the "Vacuum Cleaner Hose Attachment", D311,616. 

Apparently a distinct ornamental design

Today, all of the Flowbee™ patents have expired, so it's possible there are many versions available. 

And, as it turns out, I could have used one adapted for plants, because my pruning was a mess.

Eclipsing the Sun and Moon on Earth

I could look up some IP for anything directly related to the solar eclipse, or maybe even a lunar eclipse, but I've already done that for a display (go look at it), so to keep things fresh, let's look at plant patents.

You know, for plants with lunar or solar eclipse, or just eclipse, in the name. 

That's relevant, right?

Whatever, plant patents are cool, and I feel like I don't get enough opportunities to include them. 

Let's start with the most relevant first:

Heucherella plant named 'Solar Eclipse', PP23,647. Presumably it is named because the pattern of variegation is a lighter green outline of the leaf with an inner darker red, like the corona of the sun showing around the edges of the moon.

It would be more accurate if the variegation was a much darker red

Baptista plant called 'Lunar Eclipse', PP25,875. I don't know exactly what part of this plant is meant to evoke a lunar eclipse, but maybe you can look at the picture and tell me. It's certainly a pretty plant.

What nice flowers.

Veronica plant named 'Total Eclipse', PP18,912. I selected this one as more relevant because we're about to have a total solar eclipse. Or at least some of us are, most of us will have to make do with looking at neat shadows.

Are you a Heather? No, I'm a Veronica.

After that, the other plants are mostly just named 'Eclipse' or some kind of color plus eclipse. I liked these the most:

Hosta plant named 'Eclipse', PP24,625. Like the above baptista, it also has pretty flowers, which I clearly seem to favor over simple leafy plants.

Wheeeeee more flowers

Saintpaulia plant named 'Eclipse', PP10,103. This one has fun floral variegation, which may mean the inspiration for its name is similar to the heucherella above.

The digital discoloration of this photo is why we used to receive paper copies

Blackberry plant named 'Eclipse', PP30,448. No idea where they got eclipse for this one, they're blackberries that look normal and so does the plant. Maybe there's a whole line of astronomical berries?

I love berry season, I should get some blackberries tomorrow

And those are the best eclipsing plant patents! If you're in the area on Monday, April 8th, visit Fondren's eclipse viewing event. I won't be able to make it--it's time for the annual PTRCP Training Seminar.

Royal IP

There's been a lot in the media recently about Kate Middleton, Duchess and Princess of various locations (I could look it up but I don't want internet algorithms deciding I'm interested in royal family gossip). But did you know about Princess Kate IP?

If so, you shouldn't believe it belongs to her. A trademark--specifically a wordmark--was filed for "Princess Kate" in Nov. 2010 by Nieves & Nieves LLC. This New York-based company was seeking to sell various goods (including perfume, fashion accessories, and bedding) with that name, despite no connection to one very famous Princess Kate.

Although the filings denied that there was any implied connection to Kate Middleton, it is almost impossible to hear the phrase Princess Kate and not think of Kate Middleton, wife to Prince William. They're international celebrities and members of one of the few remaining European royal families.

Evidently, trademark examiners of the USPTO felt that was a significant enough issue to make the mark potentially misleading, and that it identified a living person who did not consent to its use. I imagine that Kate Middleton, had she been aware of the mark, would also have objected to its use. 

It's Cambridge, I think I did actually know that

No approval? No live peoples' names!

The final dismissal, after numerous appeals, was made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in April of 2014. The company in question also failed to file a required brief within the permitted time window. Perhaps they chose to give up, rather than keep fighting this battle.

You can find all of the relevant files and information on the dead "Princess Kate" mark at this TSDR link. And while it isn't as interesting to conspiracy theorists and scandal rags, I think it's a very interesting IP/trademark case that illustrates an intent to deceive fairly well.

Triple Dog IP Dare

You know, I spend a lot of time thinking about IP, even outside working hours. It's a side effect of not only my position, but this blog. Because I've made a point to investigate aspects of IP that are more likely to apply to an average person's life, or perhaps spark some interest in a person who isn't concerned with the technical side of things, I now find that I can't stop myself from considering IP. After all, who knows when I might be able to pick up a topic that will make for a good blog post, or perhaps lead to some exciting search possibilities?

Unfortunately, that means a lot of people around me have to think about IP more than they might like, too. 

It's a hazard of the occupation, and I'm sure it's not unique to this one, either. 

Recently, it was during one of the involuntary, impromptu, work-unrelated IP moments that I had a small, yet terrifying epiphany.

IP is everywhere and concerns everything in our lives. It can be applied to everything. You cannot escape the presence of IP!

Try me, I dare you. You name it in a comment, and I'll show you some relevant IP. In fact, I triple dog dare you. There's no going back from that.

Spring Snow Machines

It's spring break, and many Americans enjoy spring skiing. Yet, thanks to climate change (or even uncooperative weather), sometimes there isn't enough snow on the slopes.

What happens in those cases?

We make snow!

Well, the ski slope managers do, not us. And they use machines to do it, because most of us do not have god-level powers. 

Let's check out how the technology has evolved over the decades. We're focused those that create a snow similar to actual snowfall, not on those that rely on ice, creating snow more suitable for a snow cone than skiing (I'm looking at you, US 9,909,796).

The first examples I found (US patents only) were patented in the 1950s. US 2,676,471, granted in 1954, claimed to make sufficient quantities for ski trails and other winter sports. The Connecticut-based inventor was potentially motivated by distressing ski season in 1948, '49, and '50, all cited in the patent.

Ah, the days of patent figures that were more artistic than technical

US 3,838,815 of 1974 innovated a machine that did not require compressed air, considerably minimizing the weight and energy usage of a snow machine. Therefore, snow making was more efficient, effective, and inexpensive. Probably a good thing all-around, since high use of energy and water really only makes the original problem--lack of precipitation--worse. 

It looks like plumbing to me

By 1992, inventors were more interested in improving side effects, as snow machinery had sufficiently advanced beyond efficiency concerns. US 5,167,367 is for a ducted-fan snow making apparatus that features a reduced noise level. Various contemporary patented machines had noise levels in the 70-100 decibel range, depending on whether they were ducted-fan or compressed air models. Depending on settings and distance from the fan, this model claims to max out at 82 decibels. 

Besides, this thing just looks kinda cool

After another decade or so, snow makers were turning into entire plants. Inventors were automating their control, such as 2015's US 9,200,825: Control system for an artificial snow making plant. The system is intended for a plant that has multiple snow making apparatuses across ski runs. It's mostly for programming and communications technology, rather than snow making, but still belongs here since one little snow machine can't fix an entire broken climate!

Finally, within the last couple years, inventors were completely automating the process and freeing it from fixed electrical infrastructures. US 11,466,915 can run on battery power, but also designed to use extant electrical systems. It's also compatible with wireless systems. Versatility is now key, since power is expensive and it's time to start thinking about energy expenditures when working against climate change.

Technology to the ski slope rescue!

Another interesting related patent, albeit kind of gross sounding in my opinion, is this artificial snow and artificial ski areas invention, US 7,998,566. It relies on snow "composed of a solid lubricant compounds and resin grains" and the solid lubricant compound consists of ingredients like paraffin, polyethylene ester, polypropylene ester, polyurethane grains, and/or talcum powder. For those of you who did not grow up in a petrochemicals and plastics family, that means this snow is made from plastic and oil-based granules. It sounds so slimy and completely unlike snow. But it doesn't require water or cooling agents! And it isn't restricted to appropriate seasons or temperatures! (Puke emoji)