Generative AI Did A Thing Right?!

Yes, I was recently surprised to see that ChatGPT has finally learned how to locate Rice's most recently granted patent. It's only taken, what, 3 or 4 years? 

I suppose if you're a ChatGPT lover, you aren't surprised it got something right. And you probably think this validates your love for it*. But I'd like to pause and point out that it took ChatGPT years to figure out something I can teach humans in just a couple minutes, on multiple platforms. Not only that, I can teach humans how to do it using better sources.

Observe:  

Yes, this is correct, I checked it. I also checked it using a better resource than Justia Patents. Why is genAI so obsessed with Justia?! Any time I ask for patent info, that's their favorite site to use. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone else who favors that site. 

Anyway, I was surprised to see that something finally managed to get this question right, after asking many different LLMs the same thing over the past several years.

If you think it's hard item to produce, please come talk to me. I can help. 

*Do you depend on ChatGPT in your daily life? Do you think it makes everything better? Please see this article about how it is literally making your brain worse: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872

Fake Nails, Real IP

I've always enjoyed painting my nails, having fun colors and glitter enhance the ends of my fingers. However, as an adult, I find that this doesn't work well with my habits (gardening) or requirements (cleaning and other grown-up chores). I was beginning to think I was doomed to the semi-permanent dirt manicure and never using my hands for Instagram modeling*, until I started seeing more fake nails. Press-on nails you can apply at home. 

It strikes me sometimes that I am just an adult still playing dress-up, but the accessories are more expensive

Oh yes, in addition to being a fancy shoe person, I am now a press-on nail person.

But imagine my secondary delight at learning how much IP is involved! The trademark aspects should be immediately obvious; any brand worth its salt will almost certainly have pursued at least one registration/indication avenue to protect brands. 

It was the claim to patented technology that captured my attention. What could be patented? How the nails are made? The glue included in the kit? Their special formula to make them last longer? I had to know, and also if there were some brands with more patents that others! 

Heck yeah, IP

Now, one brand makes this too easy. Kiss has a webpage dedicated to their patents. It's unfortunate, because that takes out most of the challenge of learning if they have design or utility patents and what parts of the process they're for--nails, glue, etc. So I'm going to have my fun searching for patents by specifically excluding Kiss.

I quickly found, unsurprisingly, that there would be some struggle differentiating nail as in fingernail from nail as in the thing you hit with a hammer. I tried to control for this by requiring the presence of finger but found that might not be enough. Evidently, we are 3D printing more organs than I thought.  

I worked up to  ((((nail AND finger)OR fingernail) WITH artificial) AND manicure)NOT "Kiss Nail Products" but felt that was a little too specific, with only 92 results returned. (((nails AND finger) OR fingernail)WITH artificial) NOT "Kiss Nail Products" was a little better, with 661 results, yet it still had a lot of random results that were due to the weak relevance rankings and lack of natural language searching in Patent Public Search. 

Seriously, PPUBS? The one time I don't look for contact lenses...

Nonetheless, let's take a look at some recent fake nail technology granted patents in the US!

1.  Incidentally also the first on my results list... US 12,501,984: Artificial nail tip and curing composition set and applying method thereof. This is some higher-level tech, more likely to be found in a salon than at home so I won't likely use it myself. It's for artificial nail "extensions", and the glue and curing procedure for hardening and adhering them. If you want to do more detailed or challenging nail art, this is the kind of fake nail you'd use.
2.  Perhaps my favorite of the batch is US 12,161,211: Soluble 3D printed custom artificial nails designed through a mobile application. An independent inventor owns it, and it would be perfect for me! I could have any nail style created to perfectly fit my nails, all using an app. I can only hope this person implements or has implemented the patent. 
3.  A close second to the above is US 12,411,999: Customized artificial fingernail generation systems. The only reason it ranks lower? No app and it isn't an independent inventor. Otherwise, it is also a method for creating the perfect fake nails! Honestly, I'm excited to have a system make the perfect nail set for me. Maybe it will be this one. 
4. Honorable mention! US 11,327,565: Nail manicure tips for enabling use of a touchscreen device, and method therefore. Evidently these two Texans did not like that they couldn't use their phone while trying to remove nail polish. So while it isn't quite for fake nails, it is related to the decoration (or un-decoration) of nails. I can't say I've ever been so anxious to use my phone that I couldn't manage the wait time to remove nail polish but maybe they're using something different. Who knows; this is just the kind of innovation I like to highlight when teaching people about patents. See a problem? Solve it and own your solution. 

 

Well, now we all know a little more about how to get some press on nails in the future! Hopefully...

 

*follow us! @fondrenlibrary 

The Labubu, the Lafufu, and Intellectual Property Wars

If you haven't heard about the Labubu yet, you must be very disconnected. Aside from being a recent craze among youth and the trendy, they've appeared in TV shows, in various unsanctioned forms, and in the news. Most of us have heard about the Labubu and their counterfeit counterparts, frequently known as "Lafufu".

For those of you who somehow have managed to remain oblivious, first, let me congratulate you on your commitment to that. Second, let me introduce you to what I've started thinking of as the latest Beanie Baby (because that was my childhood's out-of-control craze). These plush toys come in all sizes and are collectively known as "The Monsters". They embody the concept of grotesque-cute, having cute cuddly animal bodies, chubby cheeks, and aggressively lowered eyebrows and (exactly 9) bared, pointed teeth. 

A soon-to-be-released Labubu, selling for $299.99. Image taken from Pop Mart website.

Now, I am not writing this post because it struck me as a good idea or piqued my IP interests like usual, but because I was asked a specific question regarding the Labubu/Lafufu relationship by a friend of mine. And, as always, something simple quickly became complex, because IP is like that. 

Let's start with paraphrasing her question. She wanted to know why there were so many fake Labubus on the market, and why their manufacturer didn't secure exclusive rights via design patent. [I'd like to briefly redirect things to point out that I have managed to teach people around me so much about IP! There's no way she would have been aware of design patents and their purpose if I hadn't talked about them enough.] She also wondered how it was possible for some counterfeits to be so faithful to the original product as to be almost impossible to differentiate. After all, who hasn't, over the years, seen a dupe of  designer brand with some kind of misspelling or inverted logo to try to dodge infringement? Yet some Lafufu might as well be made in the same factory by the same people, they are so accurate. 

[Side note: I recognize it is possible some are stolen from authorized factories and sold off-brand, I am not going to focus on that.]

My friend's question has multiple answers, the first of which is fairly easy. One of the aspects of Labubus that makes them so collectible are the many different varieties, some of which are rare, and must be bought "blind" in concealed packaging. This drives the desire to buy more, enhancing the feeling rarity and specialty when found. It's strategic marketing but makes a design patents almost impossible. Because these differences are in appearance, and design patents protect specific appearances, each Labubu would need its own separate patent (at least in the US). Since there are varieties are multitudinous, and with new versions introduced and potentially released for a limited time, pursuing design patents for the full range would be wasteful. The cost, in both time and money, would outweigh the benefits. ROI: probably negative.

The second answer, and at a sort of intermediate level, is their international marketing. A design patent can only be enforced in the jurisdiction where it was issued. So not only would they need many different iterations to protect all the different designs, they would also need to pursue them across many patent offices. No real global patenting office exists; just treaties to help ease the process of transferring applications from one granting body to another.

At this point, if you're thinking about the possibility of some kind of trademark on an international scale, or perhaps trade dress for the Labubu, you'd be closer to a potential answer--if the company Pop Mart (owners of Labubu) wanted to represent their whole brand with the Labubu or The Monsters. As best as I could find, they have many registered marks in many jurisdictions, including "The Monsters" and "Labubu", but that mostly just protects them against other entities identifying the source of the sales as Pop Mart or their Labubu. Their attempts at using the trademarks haven't been effective. 

A logo owned by Pop Mart, found on WIPO

This actually brings us close to the third answer of why there are so many Lafufus of varying quality and correctness. Enforcing a brand on a global scale is challenging at the best of times, but when you have a fast-selling sensation it is even harder, because counterfeits pop up and disappear as quickly as the real merch. And if they don't have the right kind of claim attached to their Lafufu, it might not quite be infringement. 

More than that, the company Pop Mart and the Labubu originate in China. And China is not known for being terribly strict enforcers of IP rights holders. In fact, you wouldn't be blamed for thinking that China is one of the top sources of fraudulent, infringing goods sold worldwide. The government does not have a good reputation for protecting foreign IP holder rights in China, or for staunching the flow of fake goods from their country into others. 

Since they might even have a chunk of their national income derived from these fakes, trying to suddenly enforce the IP rights of a massive sensation might be difficult. Not that the government isn't trying; they are, in fact, attempting to do their best to control it. 

Beyond that, many consumers, quite frankly, don't care if they are buying Lafufus. They know they're fakes and still purchase them. Some revel in the weirdness of the fakes and the variations they present on the original. That makes it even harder to stop their production, when the demand for a fake might justify the risks of setting up a more permanent operation.

Yet another complication? I've read that two of the best sources for a Lafufu are Shein and Alibaba, which are Chinese-owned online sales companies. They can't enforce Labubu IP within their own borders.

It extends beyond that, though. These are just the three most obvious and accessible answers for why the Lafufus seem to run unchecked.  

 

Meanwhile... I can only imagine the schadenfreude certain IP enforcers are feeling as China's IP enforcement struggles to crack down on counterfeits and their circulation.  

Happy Birthday, Patented

Well, not literally. That's not patentable. But it's been far too long since my last post, and today is my birthday, so I thought it would be a good day for a themed post.

Happy birthday, to me.

So I of course performed a birthday cake-focused patent search. Let's take a look at a few of what I feel are the most interesting, most fun, or most notable inventions.

First up, US 11,808,276: Systems, method, and apparatus for blowing out birthday candles. This deserves the top spot not because it is very inventive, unusual, or even very useful. No, it earns that honor because someone managed to write a patent that convinced the USPTO to issue a new patent in 2023 for what is essentially a portable fan. I suspect this was born of someone's horror that the birthday girl gets to blow her germs all over a cake. Now, with this little fan, you can manually power, via spring (no battery or other electric mechanism seems to be included), a slightly cleaner blast of air. Hopefully no one inhaled and exhaled that particular bit of atmosphere.

Next is US 2,786,345, the Candle holder for birthday cakes, which are very fancy looking. I grew up in a family and era when most people just jabbed candles directly into a cake. Very occasionally, someone would use cheap plastic candle holders. But these are fit for an occasion, each capable of supporting multiple candles. If anyone would like to give me a belated gift, and also has a knack for finding potentially non-existent novelty items, this is perfect. 

These are nice.

US 7,931,402, Inflatable gift wrap in the shape of a cake, takes third. My search query [birthday NEAR (cake OR candle)] was intentionally geared towards the birthday cake tradition, so I was pleasantly surprised to find this one in the mix. Apparently the "icing" decorations are meant to be interchangeable, so it can serve many purposes and events. I can get behind a fun, reusable wrapping. Lately I've found myself extremely disappointed that we continue to use and immediately dispose of paper on gifts. Heck yeah, Daniel Oas! 

Neat!

This is me, meaning I'll always include a plant whenever possible. US PP16,158 comes in fourth, with xHeucherella plant named 'Birthday Cake'. Now, it's unfortunate, but the only color photo I could find was truly awful, so we can't get a good idea of its appearance. Nonetheless, from descriptions, it sounds delicious (!) with chocolate colored ruffled leaves and creamy white flowers like candles. 

This is a terrible photo and I'm sorry

Honorable mention goes to US 10,136,659, Chocolate wax composition for candles. And yes, it is edible. I love chocolate, I love cake, so why not have my cake and eat the candles too?

Bluebells and Blue Bell

In a very exciting event for me, my Texas bluebells (Eustoma exaltatum) have bloomed! These striking flowers were raised from seed over the past year. It was challenging, and the number of adult flowering plants I have today is painfully fewer than the number of seedlings initially germinated. 

Please do not visit my yard to see this flower without an invitation, I won't be happy

Fortunately, I planted several Texas bluebells in the Fondren Rain Garden, so anyone can enjoy their beauty. 

These two spent blooms are in the rain garden; there will be more soon!

Why the excitement? Aside from the difficulty of raising them, the Texas bluebell was once an iconic flower of this region. However, it was so beautiful, that people picked enough of the flowers to nearly wipe them out. Today, it is not often seen in the wild, and you are more likely to find a cultivar or close relation for sale. Fortunately a few people recognized the need to collect and preserve some specimens, and the original wild-type plant is making its way into native gardens; maybe one day it will again grow wild in abundance. 

The Texas bluebell is also notable because it is the namesake of our regional ice cream brand, Blue Bell!  It was once so well-known it could be considered a symbol of the region. Now there are probably more people familiar with the ice cream brand than the plant.

Which brings us to the real topic of the post: Blue Bell IP. After all, it's a good excuse to look at some delicious trademarks and patents.

Despite being an ice cream (and also butter) manufacturer for nearly a century, Blue Bell Creameries owns only two patents. Both are designs for "ice cream stations", which appears to be not a whole ice cream scoop store, but rather just a stand.

The front page of D293,747

It isn't clear if this is meant to be indoors or out, or if it should be for selling just Blue Bell ice cream. Distinguishing characteristics of the two are also not immediately apparent. (Design patents are not very detailed.) Have you ever seen one of these ice cream stations? Check out US D293,748 and US D293,747 at the links. 

It's definitely for serving Blue Bell ice cream, but they make nothing else clear

On the other hand, Blue Bell owns several registered marks, many no longer active. Let's look at a few of the more iconic and recognizable entries.

The milkmaid and cow silhouette is carved into every Texan's brain, I think. There's more than one iteration registered, but here's a link to the TSDR entry for no. 1144445, issued in 1980.  

An encircled version, registered 1985, no. 1321048

The plain wordmark for Blue Bell, no. 972517, was registered in 1973. I think that's around when they were big enough to actually need a federal mark, rather than just Texas state or common law. See all of its information at the TSDR here.

The specific font was registered in 2023, no. 7106559

Blue Bell also takes some of its flavors very seriously. For example, Moo-llennium Crunch. I recall this flavor's introduction. Its registration was a little late in 2002, possibly because they didn't plan ahead and submitted the application in November 2000. Visit the specimen images and more from the TSDR. 

This is rough, I'm really craving ice cream now. Good thing I planned to visit the grocery store after work! For any Fondren staff readers, keep an eye out for a relevant announcement this week. You might be in luck, if you're a Blue Bell fan...

AI May Actually Work Now

If you're unfamiliar with my previous posts on generative AI--in particular ChatGPT and other similar LLMs--now may be a good time to do a quick review.

For those of you who read them before, allow me to make an exciting announcement: Generative AI might actually work now. That's right, it does what I asked. I am just as shocked as you.

After hearing from my tattoo artist about the Grok app, and its ability to search, I was skeptical. After all, most of these AI models that were not created specifically for searching are just garbage at it! And I had heard nothing even remotely positive about Grok previously. But I put on my librarian hat and did the right thing: I downloaded the app, signed in with my work Google account, and did a little testing.

Holy artificial dialogue. 

I was impressed! And I didn't want to be, either. However, I can recognize when something can provide a good answer. The first question I'll skim over--it was nothing more than I've been able to glean from other models, if among the better responses. It was the second question that caused the reaction.

From the start, I have asked all of the models to find the most recent patents granted to Rice University. Without fail, they have all given me a lot of bad answers, ranging from "I can't" to "here's a list of random patents and patent applications that may or may not be recent". Those that tell me it's "hard" to say what is most recent are just annoying, because patents are granted on specific dates. 

It explains it methodology and sources in its response, not requiring any extra clicks or selections

I ran this question on March 31st without having completed my monthly patent search for anything newly granted to Rice, so I couldn't immediately judge the accuracy of the results. But I do know quite a lot about Rice patents, and the two patents it listed took me by surprise. First, the most recent patent had what looked like a feasible patent number (12,251,449) and was granted to Rice and two other institutions that are frequent collaborators. The first inventor name listed is one I'm familiar with because he is on a lot of Rice patents, and the title of the patent matched his area of research. This was all promising.

All plausible, likely information at first glance

Furthermore, it listed a second patent that was granted near the end of  February, which I fully recognized as completely accurate (that one I had uploaded to the R3 repository). This additional patent made me think the first was that much more likely to be accurate.

Information I already knew was accurate

So I hopped on Patent Public Search, and verified. Sure enough, Grok got it right. 

Not only that, Grok listed quite a few details and sources used. This is also something I appreciate as a librarian and something I remind everyone in my generative AI classes to look for. 

Me shoutout! Love seeing that listed

Here's the bad news, though. It required Grok nearly a minute and 88 sources to find two patents.

This is not a request that requires 88 sources

Me? About 2 seconds and one source. Why? Because I am capable of real reasoning and actual strategic searching, with my very real intelligence.

So, no, Grok isn't going to replace me. Or us. It's just getting that tiny bit much better. Insert your appropriate emotion here: relief that you can stay employed, or disappointment that you still need to work.

Keep Your Drink Warm with some IP

You know what I really appreciate? Travel coffee/tea/whatever mugs that keep my beverage hot for hours. And not just a couple, but for 5 or so. Up until recently, I'd been using the same one for well over a decade because it was so incredibly effective. Unfortunately, it finally broke, and I was forced to use a newer version of the same container--only to find that it's not nearly as good! What happened?

I know for a fact that my old travel mug had multiple patents (this is me, of course I looked). Why abandon them? Ok, aside from the fact that given the age of my tumbler, they had likely passed into public domain (remember, patents have specific time limits). But that doesn't mean they couldn't continue to use the same design.

In celebration of the life of the coffee mug I loved and lost, and in hopes that the new one I bought for my husband's birthday is better--despite being the same brand--let us look at some Contigo (owned by Ignite USA) coffee tumbler lid patents. 

Please pay no mind to the table chaos in the background

There are three listed on the base of my current tumbler: 7,546,933, 7,997,442, and D564,841. Without looking them up, I can tell you immediately that these are not at all new and have quite likely passed into public domain. Since it also claims patent pending, I must assume newer tech is also at work. Let's look for the newer ones. Also, both of the utility patents are continuations within the same family and don't appear to be the tech behind the particular mug they're printed on, which makes them even less interesting for this entry. 

Also, I'm going to stick to utility patents, because that would be more relevant to the ability to keep my coffee warm for long periods. 

Contigo/Ignite USA haven't been very active lately when it comes to patents, as it turns out. There is nothing more recent than 2020--either granted or in application phase. This is a little disappointing, but perhaps their business plan has its reasons.

Let's look at US 10,336,513 Lid Having a Pre-venting Lid Lever and a Seal Arm Assembly. It looks moderately similar to what I have, but not quite the same. I think it's a different model; perhaps it is more effective. Maybe I should buy more tumblers and find out!

A diagram of the lid assembly from US 10,336,513

Next up is US 10,455,959 Portable Beverage Container with a Robust and Easily Cleanable Seal Mechanism. It's nothing like the coffee tumblers I know--it looks more like it is intended for chilled beverages, with the straw-like opening.

This image makes the lid look impossibly complicated

Finally, we have US 10,898,017 No-Spill Drinking Container, that again looks more like it is for a chilled beverage, similar to the above. In fact, they might be for the same whole bottle, just different parts.

It is hard to spill when drinking with a straw

 

How disappointing! None of these are for my coffee mug and none of them explain why the newer version is less effective. Perhaps more research of other patents and other patent office databases would be required.

Tattooing your Intellectual Property

If you haven't met me in person, you are likely unaware that this summer, I decided it was time for my first tattoo. (37 felt like the right age.) Since then, an artist has been working on my left arm across multiple sessions to complete an image of my favorite native Texas flowers. 

My arm immediately after the second session; still red and irritated

I may be one of the cool kids, and able to prove it, but I'm still a PTRC librarian and unable to contemplate anything without bringing in intellectual property. So, as you may expect, I've been thinking about patents related to tattooing technology. Sure, it's an ancient art that humans have practiced without the need of electricity, machinery, or knowledge of antiseptic practices, but I think we can all agree that it is often better with these improvements. 

So, let's see what people have been up to, in terms of patented tattoo inventions.

First, this is aimed at people who don't think enough about their tattoo art, perhaps: US 12,115,235, Tattoo Ink Formulation and Method. Apparently this consists of glass microspheres, containing organic pigments, that can be destroyed with ultrasound, thus allowing for a much more temporary tattoo. I'd just like to know if they work long term, and what special equipment might be required to use the ink. An intentionally removable tattoo seems like it would defeat the purpose of a permanent personal art form.

For people who really want to see tattooing go high-tech, there is US 12,178,980, Robotic Tattooing Systems and Related Technologies, which allows people to select tattoo designs online, with streamlines payment options. Not high tech enough? The tattoo is then applied via robotic machine! I kind of hate that idea; I researched local tattoo shops and selected an artist with a style I liked, and then we worked together on his unique design. I think this removes some of the artistic value, but maybe there are people who are more interested in a fast process. Also, can I just say? The figure they use for the tattoo--a piggy outline--was a choice.

The proposed little piggy tattoo in question

This next one is a bit more predictable, for improved ink formulations and pigments, and the methods of making them. US 12,195,630 Pigment Ink Dispersions, Tattoo Inks Containing the Pigment Ink Dispersions, and Method of Making the Same, was granted to Mario Barth of Las Vegas. Barth has some interesting pigmentation formulas that mean little to me, but are evidently innovative and new. 

Finally, here's an improvement in tattooing equipment: US 12,144,952 Tattoo Machine Assembly. It allows for a more customizable "feel" to the tattoo pen, by providing the use of various thicknesses of coils for springs, which permit different speeds and forces behind the needle. Saturation of pigment is greater due to a slower retraction of the needle after piercing, too. Since some body parts are much more sensitive than others--I noticed that the underside of my arm and closer to the armpit were way worse--this improvement might make the process less painful for some people. (I know one person who does not have a completed circle around her bicep because the inner arm was too much for her.) 

Me, not particularly enjoying the process but too excited to care

Any ideas for other tattoo improvements? Maybe some kind of bandage that speeds healing? The wait for it to look good again is tedious.

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!

An Entertaining History of Skee-Ball IP

I was watching a video on YouTube recently posted by a man who owns an old fashioned arcade, dedicated to his vintage Skee-Ball games. As you might expect, it got me thinking about Skee-Ball IP. According to this man, it was introduced to the public nearly 100 years ago on the original boardwalk in Atlantic City. I wanted to find the first Skee-Ball patent, if possible.

Usually, I find it is easier to approach IP mysteries from the trademark angle, so I started by looking up Skee-Ball trademarks, of which there were many. I found the primary entity that holds marks for the game is Bay-Tek Entertainment. However, applying that to a patent search wasn't going to be simple, because they did not have any Skee-Ball patents I could find. 

A screenshot of the webpage that claims a 1908 patent

Upon visiting the Bay-Tek Entertainment website and the page dedicated to modern Skee-Ball machines, I found a claim that it was originally patented in 1908. That was a bit of a surprise, because I wasn't finding a lot of documentation prior to 1928 for Skee-Ball patents or trademarks. I returned to the trademark records, and looked more closely at the record of ownership.

First trademark reassignment

Two transfers have occurred since it was first trademarked in 1929 (filed in '28). The first owner was the Philadelphia Toboggan Company. Today, it's Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters, Inc., and it was historically a maker of carousels and really really old-fashioned roller coasters. Like wooden ones. Their about/history page claims they also made Skee-Ball machines, but sold it in 1985, which is accurate. However, that's the entirety of their website's Skee-Ball documentation.

Second trademark reassignment

Furthermore, I couldn't find any patents that belonged to the Philadelphia Toboggan company or named inventors found on their webpages prior to the 1920s. Keyword searches for Skee-Ball or various game descriptions weren't helping.

I emailed Bay-Tek Entertainment and asked if they could provide any documentation to back up their claim, but haven't received an answer. That isn't surprising, I imagine they have better things to do than research patents for their no-longer-patent-protected merchandise. 

So, loyal readers, I have to admit: I cheated and didn't find the original Skee-Ball patent using my amazing searching skills. Well, I did, just not directly. I mentioned Skee-Ball history to a generative AI app I'm testing, and it gave me the inventor's name. If you query Patent Public Search with "Joseph Fourestier Simpson", it returns US Patent 905,941, Game Apparatus. 

I really want to defend myself and claim that I wasn't trying to get the solution from the AI, but it's how I got it, so there's little point in protest. A stupid AI was useful. Ugh. If only I'd thought to look at Wikipedia first or something. 

Anyway, let us enjoy this patent for the original Skee-Ball, which was once built big enough to be more like bowling. 

Drawing of how it was meant to appear

We can also appreciate and enjoy the upgrades that were patented, like this one granted in 1931, US Patent 1,826,964.

Many Skee-Ball patents have been granted over the decades, yet the actual game has fundamentally changed very little. It's still a ramp connected to rings that ends in a bump. It just has more electronic bits and plastic pieces.