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)

Cheese Doodle Day!

As it is evidently Cheese Doodle Day today (March 5th), a post about some cheese doodle/curl IP seems appropriate. This could be an easy, minimally-researched post, too, if I relied upon Cheetos. But I won't cheet (ha, ha) you like that. I'll give you a fully-researched product!

However, I want to first acknowledge at least one Cheetos trademark, because it would be remiss of me to completely skip the most famous of cheesy puff snacks. Here's one of the trademarks for the illustrated form of the name Cheetos, owned by Frito-Lay, registration no. 2680627. Did you know that name was first used in commerce in 1948?

Mmm, delicious corn product coated in orange powdered cheese product

Obviously there are many more cheese curls on the market, varying in quality and deliciousness. One such example are the Bon Ton Cheese Curlies, word mark, registration no. 1955350. I don't know this brand, but they are one of the first results when you search the USPTO's database for cheese curls.

Please note this product's very distinct monkey mascot clearly not based on another cheesy snack

But don't forget your pseudo marks! Cheez Doodles, word mark, registration no. 644839, very specifically lists cheese flavored corn curls as its associated good, whereas Bon Ton Cheese Curlies are for the broader corn based snack foods, and Cheetos are for the slightly more detailed corn-based snack foods, namely, puffed corn snacks. It's interesting those two don't mention cheese; perhaps it is to allow some wiggle room for additional flavoring options. 

25 cents?! These must be a cheeper (ha, ha, sorry) and lower quality variety

What about other forms of IP? I bet there are many copyrights for packaging design. After all, that can fall under the purview of copyright rather than trademark or design patents. 

Nonetheless, I think patents would be more interesting. We got to look at some packaging above in the format of specimens, and the copyright registration database doesn't come with images or examples. Also, it sounds like it might be a challenge to search for cheese curl technology without relying on a brand name, and if anyone loves a challenging search, it's a librarian. 

In case you're curious, my search query in Patent Public Search was (chee$2 adj (curl OR doodle or snack or p$2ff?) and corn) not cheek?. Fairly successful, not perfect. The best results are...

US 4,517,204: Reduced calorie puffed snack food products

US 11,589,595: Cheese toppings for baked snacks suitable for prebake application

 

US D609,878: Curved cracker

None of them are quite perfect, like I said, but there's definitely one that might apply to a reduced calorie Cheeto, and the other two certainly cite cheese puffs or cheese doodles.

Hooray for cheesy snack IP!

BONUS! Finger sheath patent--which specifically calls out cheese puffs: