Holiday Special Post! Magnetic Tape and IP Are Disappointing Star Wars Fans

Let's talk about copyright, and in particular, Star Wars.

For those who may not know, Star Wars is among the most valuable franchises, and has more IP than I'd care to try to list. And while the franchise spans games, toys, books, TV shows, clothing, amusement parks, and probably food items, it all stemmed from a project in the 1970s that came with no small amount of scorn and doubt. 

Today, we all know and love the original Star Wars movie (later A New Hope), copyright 1977. However, many have only seen specific edited versions, or "special editions", that came later. In fact, there aren't a lot of viewable copies of a widescreen (normal. Today that's just normal.) original version. That is something of a collector's item--and not just according to the label.

Yes, dear readers, I have a copy of the original trilogy on VHS in widescreen. 

Widescreen was once an optional format

And, like many people, I would like to own that version on a slightly more contemporary media format. Why I can't purchase it on DVD or stream it is another story. Briefly, after editing his films Lucas didn't want the older version distributed, meaning that I might be able to find a bootlegged version or a non-professionally edited copy, but not the true originals. 

So, with help from the staff in the Digital Media Commons (shout out to Ian), I decided that this slow time of year was perfect to transfer it to DVD. [Look, I know that it's copyrighted material and I am pretty familiar with the basics of copyright; but I didn't intend sell, distribute, show in public, etc. the DVD. I just wanted to be able to watch my movies at home.]

Bad news, fans

As it turns out, someone foresaw this type of activity, and there's a built-in mechanism that prevented me from making a DVD copy. Apparently, a part of the magnetic tape has been encoded. This is distressing because VHS has a fairly short shelf-life, and there aren't many players left that don't destroy or damage a tape due to age. Furthermore, finding a VHS player that is compatible with modern TVs or screens is challenging, and becoming impossible. Even the converters are harder to find, and tend to be more unreliable.

A boxed set of sci-fi, space drama joy, a Collector's Edition!

What is most frustrating about this, in my opinion, is how many times people likely recorded the movies from onto VHS, or Tivos, or whatever, back in the day. This fairly common practice clearly never affected the value of the original property. I mean, it's worth billions! People attempting to make a copy of this specific VHS could not have been widespread enough to affect the overall value of the Star Wars franchise, either. 

Here's some potential evidence for my reasoning that people who recorded Star Wars material haven't destroyed the value of the original.

In 1978, there was a televised event, the Star Wars Holiday Special. It was made to capitalize on the success of Star Wars, and also the holiday season. It was aired a single time, because it was simply just so awful. In fact, the people behind it did their best to try to forget it ever happened and hope that the rest of the world would, too.

Well, people don't always forget things, and fortuitously (?), some viewer decided to record the Holiday Special. As one might expect, the advent of the internet and the web led to it turning up online, and the Holiday Special had quite the renaissance decades later. It feels like only one copy of it was ever retained, because most of us have seen an ad for a local news report after the special. Who knows, maybe someone has the original shots and tapes somewhere. But given Lucas' opinion and attitude towards the Holiday Special (which is allegedly that he was mostly uninvolved and wasn't it awful what those TV people did?), it is no surprise that he didn't have his company distribute copies.

Despite the train wreck that is the Holiday Special and its refusal to die, Star Wars didn't lose any of its value. Not even immediately following the international airing of it, and almost universal bad reviews. The later bootleg versions that so many of us fans have seen haven't tarnished the value, either. 

So why stymie fans like myself, who just want a semi-modern copy of movies they love? We aren't a large enough force to impact the value of Star Wars, and never have been. By the time this collectors' edition was released, all three films had been out for years, and available on multiple media formats.

A VHS I failed to copy today

I'm going to assume that perhaps most commercially made VHS of a similar quality has these built-in safeguards, and that it isn't just Lucasfilm or 20th Century Fox being particularly cruel about their IP. Perhaps it was standard manufacturing process to include.

I'm still mad, though. I was planning on watching the movies during the break.

The Mystery of the Hy Jacker

We're Texans here at Rice, and Texans love their cowboy boots. But something not everyone knows about cowboy boots is that they can be hard to remove.

During a conversation with a colleague from Rice's Lilie, I learned about the greatest boot jack ever sold: a transportable, fold-able, metal boot jack. She found it on Ebay, and asked me what the "patent pending" inscription meant.

It's hard to say without some. First, a product can only claim to have a patent pending if it meets a couple of criteria. At the most basic, some kind of patent application needs to have been filed. However, it could be either a provisional patent application or a regular (or nonprovisional) utility patent application. Without getting too deep into the technicalities and legal side of things, a provisional patent application is an unexamined version of an application that acts similar to a placeholder. Someone might file this before seeking out investors or clients, to ensure their claim on an invention is valid. After all, patents are granted to the first to file, and only inventions undisclosed prior to the patent process are patentable. Applicants then have 12 months (with some exceptions) to file the nonprovisional utility patent application, which is examined and can lead to obtaining a patent. 

Inventions that have a nonprovisional utility patent application on file can claim to have a patent pending, but might also say "patent applied for". [I suspect that "patent applied for" may be avoided because it is longer and just doesn't sound quite as good. Alliterations are appealing.]

However, her real interest was if it was too niche of a product, because if this boot jack was granted a patent, wouldn't it be easier to find? Perhaps more common on the market and not just a vintage listing?

Well, this got me wondering about the fate of the Hy Jacker and its patent. I did a basic preliminary search for portable, foldable boot jacks on Lens.org, and found one potential match. Yet, as my colleague had also learned from her own brief Lens search, this was not the same invention. She subsequently sent me a link with images of the Hy Jacker for reference.

The Hy Jacker's IP inscription

This is where the search heated up a little, and made its way into potential blog post territory.

I immediately noticed that right above "patent pending" was inscribed Hy Jacker, complete with federal registration mark.

Another view of the same part

Ah ha! With that, I could potentially search the trademark database for information on the manufacturer, which might give me a concrete piece of information to use in a patent search.

I might teach most people how to perform keyword patent searches, but if you ever have specific information on a patent, use it. That is much easier; save your keywords for discovery searches.

Finding the Hy Jacker trademark record was fairly easy. Issued registration number 1255353 in 1983, Hy Jacker® had a fairly short life as a federally registered mark. It was cancelled in 1990, for failure to file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. Which means, essentially, that the owners did not inform the USPTO it was still in use. (Or not in use under certain acceptable special circumstances, as it may be.) Since there are no documents available through the TSDR, it is hard to learn further details about the fate of the Hy Jacker® trademark.

Word image on the registration certificate and record

What we do gain is information on the name of the company and its location. If a patent was ever issued, this will help us. 

Unfortunately, we also learned that this product was probably manufactured between 1983 and 1990, so if it never was granted a patent, we may not be able to find much. Patent Public Search only has nonprovisional patent applications post March 2001. There are other resources that might have patent applications prior to that, but none of them have databases of provisional applications. 

VOILÀ! Our luck held! A quick session with Patent Public Search revealed that the Hy Jacker® received two patents, around the same time the trademark was registered. It was granted one utility and one design patent. 

Patent Public Search isn't for everyone, but I'm a librarian so I like query syntax

And, my colleague at Lilie may be in luck, too: these patents are definitely expired... she should get some of her entrepreneurship contacts on board with recreating the Hy Jacker®! 

Now, I don't know the fate of the Hy Jacker® company, but it seems to have been a sad one. It appears to have failed within a few years, maybe because the market wasn't large enough, or saturation was reached too quickly with a long-lasting product, or if perhaps the inventor (Robert C. McCormick) or the business ran out of money after registering too much IP too quickly. So it might not be a great idea to restart a business based on this product. But at the very least, she could have a few more made without fear of IP infringement.

Mystery solved, folks. Got any other IP cold cases? Your PTRC Rep is just a message/phone call away from closure.

AI Is Getting Better...

A quick update post: generative AIs are improving. If you review some of my previous posts about their ability to perform some of my tasks, patent searches in particular, you'll recall that the most basic available tools (ChatGPT 3, for example) failed abysmally in all respects. 

From there, they improved slightly, but most still were unable to produce accurate results, if any.

After testing a few more recent iterations, I found some improvements. The best so far is from Perplexity.ai, which produced one set of search results, to an extent: 

At least there are results and they mostly make sense

Of course, if you're familiar with US patents, you've likely spotted that some of these aren't truly recent--we surpassed patent 11 million in the US in May of 2021, so patent no. 6,861,123 is... old. Three are also patent applications, from 2021, 2023, and 2014. One is almost a decade old, and potentially none have been granted.

I tried a more specific prompt, hoping for less generic results, and that was just too much to handle:

Generative AI is really amateur compared to a librarian

However, it is worth noting that Perplexity.ai always provides sources.

Also, generative AI clearly isn't meant to replace advanced searching. Maybe one day.

First Sale Doctrine and You

Like me, I know you've definitely contemplated how it is permissible for books and other products to be resold without violating creators' or original owners' intellectual property rights.Why is it okay to sell a book to Half Price Bookstore, who resells it, when the contents of that book belong to a copyright holder? How is it legal for vintage stores to sell branded garments from internationally recognized trademark holders like Nike, complete with the trademarked Swoosh? If car dealerships are independently owned and operated, why are they permitted to sell vehicles that are comprised of many patented parts, bearing trademarked logos and even appearances?

After all, in many of these case, the products have been altered or associated with a new brand. New cars come with post-manufacturer upgrades that don't void warranty or make them any less a version of their original make and model. Some vintage stores have embellished garments or accessories that are still sold using the original product's familiar qualities, using that to add market value. 

Patent law says that assignees have the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale in the U.S., or importing into the U.S., their patented inventions. Copyright law grants owners the right to selling copies, performing, exhibiting, displaying, playing recordings of, and distributing reproductions of their work, and authorizing others to do any of those. Trademarks grant businesses the right to use a specific image, phrase, sound, or some other media to identify their brand and product.

These aren't cases of licensing, in which creators or owners allow a third party to use their IP for a fee or some other exchange. 

So why aren't dealerships sent cease and desist notices, clothing resellers taken to court for trademark infringement, and authors/publishers suing second hand book stores for royalties?

What we're looking at here are all cases of first sale doctrine--a legal precedent near and dear to all librarians' hearts (which may also be described as exhaustion when concerning patents). It's an interesting aspect of IP law that can be applied in roughly the same way to patent, trademark, and copyright cases. 

Generally speaking, the specific rights to income from IP for an item stop after the first sale to the general consumer market. 

An important part of this to keep in mind: it is the specific copy or item that first sale doctrine applies to, not the concept or work--the true IP at stake.

In the case of copyright, I can resell a book but not make copies of it, or perform public readings from it, or create a movie based on it. Only that one copy, that particular item, is subject to first sale. 

Similarly, the same applies to products with trademarks appearing on them. Reselling the branded product does not infringe, only reusing the actual trademark separately would. In our example above, applying the Nike Swoosh to the name of a resale store, or using it to represent the store in some way, would be the violation. But carrying products that have the mark is distinct. 

Think of it the same way in terms of patents: a vehicle with patented components is a single instance of that patented technology. The actual patent, or producing more vehicles with the same patented components, is not for sale or distribution.

It is also important to note that first sale doctrine, primarily when applied to trademarks, also stipulates that the re-selling does not negatively impact its value. If the general consumer's goodwill towards a brand is damaged because of the resale, then first sale doctrine may not apply. 

The seller also needs to make it clear, in many cases confirmed by courts, that they are not the actual owner or representatives of any items. That's kind of why "independently owned and operated" gets thrown around a lot (though only one reason). 

To combine those two concepts, if I turn Nike athletic shoes into a pair of sandals, they can't be such poor quality that it reflects negatively on the overall Nike brand. I also can't represent my sandals as something licensed or produced by Nike. It must be very clear that these are Hannah's athletic sandals, sold by Octopeds™ company. [Octopeds™: they're so great, you wanna wear eight!]

Of course, we have to consider that any one of these examples may not go the way I propose them in a court of law. A company like Nike may not look too kindly on someone messing with their products; if they take me to court, they're going to win just because I can't afford to compete with their legal resources.

Also, I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, so don't quote me or my blog on this. Use the linked pages, they are more authoritative.

Are you confused yet?

Yeah, me too. Let's go look at internet cats or something instead.

Hobbit IP: Permissions there and back again

Here's a fun, (semi-personal) local story about IP for you. The Hobbit Cafe opened in Houston in 1972 as a uniquely vegetarian restaurant for its first decade. During this time, interest in the Hobbit and Lord of The Rings was much more limited--the first of the live action movies did not come out until 2001. [The 1970s animated movies and series, like Ralph Bakshi's, were cool, but not mega-blockbusters, and didn't have the same effect on the IP's value.]

Still, the owners very responsibly obtained permission from the Tolkien estate to use the Hobbit name and related themes. Decor, menu items, and today merchandise prominently feature characters and settings.

My Hobbit shirt from days of employment; I recommend a Smaug design if you want one.

Across the decades, more Lord of the Rings and Hobbit-inspired restaurants and commercial venues opened in Houston, and around the world. Yet clearly, few of them remain today. For example, Rivendell Grill is long gone.

And why is that? 

It's best understood if I first explain some of the franchise ownership rights. Presently, most of those belong to Middle-earth Enterprises (formerly Tolkien Enterprises), which is a division of the Saul Zaentz Company. New Line Cinema and Miramax own the rights to the movies and the related IP.

A really boring image of the copyright record for the first live-action Lord of the Rings movie

The Tolkien estate retains many rights; when they grant licenses, they can select what licensees may use. Integral to this post, their permissions supersede Middle-earth Enterprises.

So, when the franchise was re-licensed and a new film adaptation released, the IP became a much more valuable commodity owners were not inclined to share. Establishments like Rivendell Grill were contacted and told to shut down or change because they violated the rights of the owners of Lord of the Rings and Hobbit concepts.

The oldest but still live mark on record for the Hobbit word mark related to Lord of the Rings

Records of many lawsuits and and legal disputes over Lord of the Rings-themed names for business, especially called Hobbit, are easy to find. Wikipedia lists several, but none of them mention Houstonian entities. Which, fine, we evidently haven't created any notable enough cases, and for a distinct reason.

This next part is sort of "insider info". I mentioned at the start that this was a semi-personal story; the Hobbit Cafe is near and dear to me for a few reasons. I waited tables there as my first paid job out of college, and yeah, I've heard all the jokes about the good my art history degree was doing, thanks. [It's also where my husband and I met. Ask me in person sometime for that fun story, though it is best told with both of us present.] 

It was during my employment that I learned about the fate of so many Lord of the Rings-themed joints. Evidently, in the early 2000s, the holders of certain rights went on a spree, demanding that establishments without their licensing or permission close. The Hobbit Cafe, fortunately, could produce evidence that they had obtained permission to open a restaurant directly from the Tolkien family and estate. The Hobbit Cafe, thanks to their due diligence and respect for IP, was allowed to remain open. 

That's a lesson for all of us to take away from this. Permission was simple enough to procure over 50 years ago, and stands up to major companies' legal forces. 

But on a final note, Hobbit Cafe seems to have never been granted a service mark for their name. Check out the records here.

On a more final note, I'm not endorsing the Hobbit Cafe and neither is anyone else. This is meant only as a tale to help people understand why permission for IP are so important. My husband and I visited the restaurant recently on the day a judge officially tied our knot, and just like you, I think about IP all the time.

Us hamming it up in the cafe on the day in question. I'm protecting his privacy... he hates it when I use his picture

Bill Nye the Patent Guy

Yep, turns out Bill Nye isn't just a fun science educator, TV personality, and proponent of science and logic: he's also a patented inventor. 

I watched a fair bit of Bill Nye the Science Guy as a kid (federal mark registration nos. 5767841, 6016692, 2010276, 1573911, and 1794982); there are some pieces of his show I still recall clearly, more than 25 years later. He blended entertainment and science learning for children in a unique way that was memorable to many people, proven by his continued influence on my generation. [Language warning on that last one.]

It is therefore hardly surprising to learn that he is also the inventor of multiple patents. I could not have been more pleased when I recently learned this. 

And, very appropriately, some of them could have been featured on his show, used to explain science to kids (or even adults). Most notable in that category is US Patent no. 5,515,203 Educational Lens. It could have been on his show, as the patent essentially states in the background information section. That section is the most easily readable in any utility patent I've ever seen, and reflects many of the values and statements we've always heard from Nye: science is for everyone, we can make it interesting and educational for all people of all ages, and simple household items can be used for fun science experiments. Unfortunately, the rest of the patent reads fairly similar to others, relying on jargon and special patent syntax found in no other form of writing. The Educational Lens is Nye's first patent, granted in 1995.

Anyone can make this patent with a few simple objects!

His next most famous patent is not as educational in use nor is it written in plain language in any part. Bill Nye, influenced by what I can only imagine, designed and invented a better toe shoe for ballet dancing en pointe. Patent nos. 6,895,694 and 7,254,904 describe the improvement to the toe shoe that helps increase comfort and reduce injuries frequently incurred in this form of dance. 

A better toe shoe

I'd particularly like to learn if the new toe shoe became a more common model, or if everyone is waiting out the last few years of the patents' enforceable period to start mass producing it. Anyone up to some ballet shoe market research?

Later, Nye and co-inventor Steve Goucher patented a Throwing Technique Trainer (no. 7,771,294). Again, Nye's patent is aimed at helping reduce injuries related to specific functions. In this case, it is mostly focused on baseball, especially pitchers, who eventually have stress injuries from repeated, extreme motions. This training tool doesn't change that, but it does work on mitigating injuries resultant from sloppy or incorrect technique. An ounce of prevention, and all that.  

Learn to throw a baseball correctly with Bill Nye

Finally, there is a design patent no. D399,522 for a digital abacus that I'm 90% certain is also his; I feel like there can only be so many William S. Nyes who live in Seattle, and among those, just one who also likes to invent learning tools. It's a binary number-based abacus, which sounds challenging. He shares invention credit with William M. Pease, also of Seattle.

Binary abacus, anyone?

According to the bio on his website, I'm correct (phew!).

Well, I'm off to fill a Ziploc® bag with water and create an Educational Lens.

Hey Gummy Guy!

Well if gummy treats are going to be a big deal this football season, then we better know about gummy IP. 

Hey Gummy Guy! Whose products are you handing out? Trolli? Let's see what we can find.

We know that Trolli brand gummy worms are a big player in both the gummy world and Rice's football games. After all, he recently visited Fondren before a game with some giveaways in a very prominently marked bag. As expected, there are MANY marks registered for Trolli, some for the candy itself, others for various marketing accoutrements like lip balm, clothing, backpacks, and other apparel. Though there seems to be more than one Trolli confection company, the mark that stands out most is designed word mark, familiar from recent video shots. It was submitted for examination, serial no. 97711266, only just this September--though I know I've seen it in years past. Perhaps the actual appearance of the name Trolli was not previously considered important enough to register. 

Currently being examined for federal registration, but...

However, based on investigation of some of the other registered Trolli candy marks, that may be due to some recent changes in ownership or licensing. Another word mark, no design included, with registration no. 1285440, was first registered in 1984 and includes a specimen that contains a recognizable element:  

I see you, Trolli, and  your registered symbol!

That's definitely a familiar font, just like the one above.

A third contender's specimen even has a package of some truly familiar gummies I believe we might have seen in the YouTube video linked above, under registration no. 2140788.

Technically, these are caterpillars, not worms

Fun fact:  There are still more companies that own this Trolli brand registrations. And they have the correct Trolli candy packaging appearance in their specimen files.

I'm uncertain who actually owns this brand and the candy name. All three of the registrations lead to different company names and locations. But they must all be related--or there would be a likelihood of confusion problem!

The parent company that has applied for the new word mark registration, Ferrara Candy Company, owns several patents.

The company name of Trolli did not find any assigned patents, and neither does the German firm, Willy Mederer KG, which owns the mark for registration no. 1285440.

Maybe there's a lot of licensing for the name, and many people create a product? After all, the patents for Ferrara are only for designs of candy appearances and some candy/display boxes.

Or maybe we should just enjoy our athletic gummy treats and not worry about relevant IP.

LOL! Yeah right, IP is clearly never far from our minds, right? 

...right?

Squishy Patents: Of Squishmallows and Squishables

In a previous post about plushes (Squishmallows vs. Squishables), I mentioned a potential future post investigating design patents for different squishes belonging to the parent companies.

It turned out to be a far more difficult task than anticipated. 

In true librarian fashion, I was looking forward to some really complex search queries in Patent Public Search. For example:

((kelly WITH toys).as. OR jazwares.as.) AND plush AND D$.pn.

Unfortunately, that's not how things worked. I was forced to simplify my query multiple times and still had zero results. I resorted to searching "squishable" and "squishmallow". This was in no small part because the parent companies did not have any patents, or, in the case of Jazwares (Squishmallows), useless unrelated properties. [Although one might argue that this patent for a social media system could be related to their Squishmallows marketing.] 

This dog thing in patent D634,373 from Jazwares terrifies me

Somehow, these results were even more baffling. The only patents that reference Squishables or Squishmallows are owned by other entities. And they don't directly refer to the patented designs by the product names; those appear in the "other publications" section. 

In the case of Squishmallows, when you visit the current version of the website referenced by patent D994,050 or D995,661, the plushes shown are genuine Squishmallows. You can see the tags with the registered Squishmallow brand name.

The Morey Organization, assignee to patents D994,050 and D995,661, created a design based on Squishmallows and then cited that brand's plush (sold by a similar group). These two birds are much more articulated than most Squishmallows--significantly, legs attached to feet, not just pseudopod-like appendages--and have Morey Organization stitching, which makes them patentably unique, perhaps.

Bird squish, non-mallow

In the case of Squishables, the patents are similarly for products from non-Squishable entities that cite genuine Squishables (maybe?) in the "other publications". I've mentioned Ontel products before (see the cat inventions post) and I know they aren't associated with the Squishable brand. The critters in patents D855,708 and D857,122 have features not seen in Squishables (the same zipper on the back noticed in the cat post). 

But why does it have a zipper?!

To me, these patents aren't just squishy in terms of the items. They feel intellectually and commercially squishy.

It seems as though Squishables and Squishmallows have neglected to patent any of their designs. Perhaps it is why both lines seem to have several similar plushes, and so many more similar products seem to exist.

However, I think I can tell the difference between the brands; and at the very least I know there are various brands.

ChatGPT: Useful At Last

Y'all, I finally found a use for ChatGPT (and other similar LLMs) in my work.

Have you ever read a patent, and felt like it wasn't written in English? Even if you know something about the field, it just doesn't seem to communicate concepts in a way most humans can understand.

I've spent a lot of time trying to read and understand patents, and I've spent a lot of that time not understanding what I am reading. Even some of the simpler inventions I've shared--like the cat tree in this post--may have sections difficult to comprehend. 

Well, for my third post on ChatGPT (and other LLM AIs), I can tell you it has finally helped me in a significant way: ChatGPT will explain a patent to you in simple, plain English.

Requesting an explanation

Most of the explanation provided

Of course, significant limitations should be applied. If you provide a patent number to the free, historical info-only version of ChatGPT, chances are it will tell you about the wrong patent.

Thanks for explaining something else

And if the text you copy from a patent into the text entry box is too long to get around that, it will cause an error and not be able to respond. 

I'm uncertain what amount of text is too much

But the live info-version of ChatGPT that powers Bing Chat Enterprise did provide a good explanation for Rice's most recent patent, US 11,767,291 "Preparation of Secondary Amines with Electrophilic N-Linchpin Reagents", without me needing to copy and paste the patent's text. 

This was a really good explanation that included molecule diagrams!

I have found that just asking for info about a patent, or providing just a number or a title, can lead to some incorrect information. So if you want accuracy, pasting sections of text or specifying patent number, title, and maybe even more might be best. 

Bing decided it didn't want to deal with my corrections

You might also get a "link" that is just plain text

Oh, and you have to use Microsoft Edge to access Bing Chat. Not my preferred internet browser.

But even with these somewhat significant drawbacks, at least I got an explanation for what all these embodiments and disclosures really mean.

Different Squishes?! Squishmallows vs. Squishables

If you read my previous post, you might recall that I mentioned Squishmallows, which are immensely popular plushes (see recent O-Week themes). As it turns out, during my writing process, I confused Squishmallows with Squishables, which are a similar product from a different company. In an initial draft I linked to the wrong website, and was uncertain why the exact PSL plush I was looking for didn't appear. Thankfully, a more knowledgeable friend helped me find the correct reference and website.

This got me thinking about the IP aspects of the squishies, in particular trademarks. Since these companies are almost certainly in direct competition, it makes sense that they would want to protect their products when possible.

This is a Squishmallow

This one is a Squishable

I clearly do not know the difference between them, since I had no idea they were different products. But perhaps learning about IP will help me! Besides, I could really use some practice with the New Trademark Search.

Oh my gosh are there a LOT of registered marks for Squishmallows! Just the word mark alone has some 27 registrations. Of those, two are for the actual plush toys, nos. 5454574 and 6457232. There is another in the application process, serial no. 97735837, but it's not associated with the same company. None of the marks with plush goods have a specific appearance. Those are either for games or Christmas ornaments (serial nos. 90676140 and 90676105) but they include the word "original".

Serial no. 90676105, but not for the plush

Serial no. 90676140, also not for plush

One Squishmallow mark that is kind of an image and for plush toys is Squishmail (also a word mark under a different serial number). Unfortunately, the Squishmails do not have a promising future, as the company that owns Squishmallows, Kelly Toys, is appealing a final refusal for registration. It worked out in other jurisdictions, as the TSDR record shows an international registration, no. 1652225 (same for the word mark).

I have no idea what this is, but its cute

Squishables has their own set of trademarks, if fewer. They've protected certain aspects of different plush toy lines, which I found interesting. For example, Squishable GO! (registration no. 6580804) is specifically for vehicles like dump trucks, fire trucks, or trains. 

For your vehicular plush

These seem made to appeal to a very young audience, which contrasts with other Squishables that are likely to appeal to only adults or near adults. What plush might that be, you ask?

Well, one is the line of Boozy Buds, which has both the basic word mark (registration no. 6457777) and a design version (registration no. 6457778), and consists of plush alcoholic beverages. 

A Boozy Bud, probably a Bloody Mary

The actual trademarked Boozy Buds design

Another is The Mysterious Doctor Plague line, which also has a basic word mark (registration no. 6457715) and a designed word mark (registration no. 6457716).

This specimen displays both the trademarked font design and the relevant plush

Both of those are clearly intended for a more mature audience.

Of course, the trademark doesn't stop Squishmallows from making their own plague doctor plush; I heard that it came out after the Squishable version. It just stops them from infringing on the use of the word mark or the designed words in reference to plush toys. Since this one is named Aldron the Plague Doctor, it seems to go unchallenged.

Finally, it appears that Squishables were around first. Or their trademarks were filed first--to the best of my searching knowledge. More research into the companies and dead trademarks would be required.

In conclusion, I've learned a lot about the extensive number of Squishie registrations, but I didn't learn much about how they're different--but I can tell the names apart now and I definitely understand the different parent companies. Just don't ask me to buy a specific plush, I'm sure I'd mess that up.

Perhaps I should take a look at design patents? Hmmm...

'Tis the (Pumpkin Spice) Season

Ah, pumpkin spice! Every fall, this flavor takes over everything, growing annually from fairly humble beginnings. Pumpkin spice has gone from flavoring the original pumpkin spice latte (PSL) to a wide range of food and beverages, even appearing on cleaners, cosmetics, and more. There's a Squishmallow Pumpkin Spice Latte (Squishmallows are large, squishy, adorable stuffed... well, not animals in this case).

Squishmallows: tasty, very round plush

But does anyone own pumpkin spice? Or some aspects of it?

Yes. There are lots of owned instances of pumpkin spice. A very basic search of the USPTO's newly released beta Trademark Search shows 32 results. Many are dead or abandoned; 9 are not immediately obvious matches; and the use of pumpkin spice varies for types of products and how much of the mark it comprises. I, for one, am glad that someone has decided to abandon some kind of pumpkin spice athletic or sports event service; it sounds like a bad pairing.

WHY?? Who thought it was a good idea?!

Among the pumpkin spice lawyers, martinis, cappuccinos, muffins, ales, armies and milks, I first found a single instance of a registered pumpkin spice latte. And yet, it's for bar soaps. I suppose the pumpkin spice alone wasn't enough, they needed to add a little milk and coffee to the mix for a truly pleasing bar soap... flavor? Read more about this particular instance in the TSDR entry for registration no. 6,468,895. 

Delicious, delicious soap

The next closest was the Pumpkin Spice Latte Run. It's not quite the same as a pumpkin spice athletic event, but it still brought up a few questions. For example, how popular is a running event related to pumpkin spice lattes? After I drink a PSL, I am in no mood to go running, it's a dessert drink. Even if you run before having the beverage, the pairing still makes little sense to me.

Don't drink dessert and dash

A little further investigation reveals that the purpose is to register for the event, run any 5K, and then earn some rewards, which are all PSL related. If you've ever participated in a PSL Run, you'll have to explain it to me in the comments.

...And that's it. I'm honestly a little disappointed to learn that there is so little ownership of PSL on the trademarks side of things. Perhaps I should have looked more at patents, but I imagine that would be even less successful.

Enjoy your PSL while you can. I had a little PSL flavored creamer in my coffee this morning, which I never do, just to get psyched up for this blog entry. Perhaps I'll even splurge on some other PSL product. Recommend the best non-coffee confections!