A Squishy IP Reprise

Well, I somehow ended up with two Squishes in my office. One is a Squishmallow, and the other is a Squishable.

I cleared some space on a chair for them

Also, when I said "somehow", I should clarify that I intentionally purchased the pickle Squishmallow for my office, because clearly no office is complete without a pickle plush.

I think the best part is that the Squishable is actually the ~Mysterious Doctor Plague~ who had a featured trademark appearance in my previous entry. I received him as a gift for Valentine's Day, my husband completely unaware that my blog had focused on that particular bit of IP. (If you're wondering why I got a plague doctor Squishable for Valentine's Day, it's because St. Valentine is the patron saint of plagues, along with beekeeping and epilepsy. So he gave me a plague doctor, a bag of Bit o' Honey, and conceded that he couldn't figure anything out for epilepsy.) 

Squishily mysterious!

I was not incorrect about some of my suppositions when it came to differentiating the two. The Squishmallow is not as articulated, and has a more velvety texture than a fake fur, like the Doctor Plague. Otherwise, the best indicator might just be knowing your brands and checking those marks!

Anyway, enjoy these close-up views of trademarks and their registration symbols, all from residents of my office.

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.

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...