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!