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On the other hand, Blue Bell owns several registered marks, many no longer active.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...

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!

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.

The Trademark Olympics!

Like any big sporting association, the international Olympic games own many marks. In fact, there are so many Olympic committees and associations it's almost impossible to do a search for Olympic trademarks. Do I search for something international or just in the US? And who really owns the concept? 

Truly, I had no idea when I started this, and my ignorance of the legal and organizational scope of the Olympics really only became clear as I tried to find official Olympics trademarks.

"But surely," I told myself, "someone must own that interconnected rings symbol or everyone would put all over everything."

Yeah, they do. And apparently it's everyone who has ever participated in an Olympic Games. I truly did not expect to be so overwhelmed by such a seemingly simple search premise. I think it is due to one culprit in particular, too.

Anyway, here are some Olympic symbols and their owners:  

The above-mentioned culprit! Canada's Canadian Olympic Committee went WAY overboard registering  their marks... in Canada. I did not find that they had registered so many in any other jurisdiction. Also, for all of the registrations that I pulled, they claimed every single class. Seriously! Nice classes 1-45 completely. Either CIPO was feeling lenient towards the Canadian Olympic Committee or they have pretty open ideas about classes of goods and services. 

ALL THE CLASSES (except it can only show 33; note the comma)

This particular mark is one of their committee's symbols. It was registered in 1975, and according to the WIPO Global Brand Database, is still live. 

The Canadian Olympic Association logo, since 1975

The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee has many registrations in the USPTO database, but it doesn't have them like Canada. This one is for branding some random souvenirs. Still, it's likely just one of many similar logos that is used for multiple purposes and you've likely seen this past week.

Team USA!

I accidentally closed the window with this information about this registered mark, and given how overwhelmed I've felt about this search, thought I would never find it again. But allow me to introduce you to the image search function in the Global Brand Database sometime.

Both color and grayscale, just in case

It's for the British Olympic Association and covers a handful of expected and (probably also) souvenir-related classes. It doesn't seem to be the main symbology, though; that's a lion or lion head. 

The British were not my first guess when I saw this

The Qatar Olympic Committee is another that has worked hard to cover all potential infringement bases. They've registered this symbol in more countries than you might guess. I did not know the name of the IP office in Zimbabwe before this afternoon, but now I do. In this particular case, the image and the related record is from Tunisia, another IP office I was previously unfamiliar with.

I like how it's the ring colors but people

Finally, here is the recognizable international Olympic Games symbol, from the International Olympic Committee (Comité International Olympique) based in Switzerland. The specific registration is with the EPO.

International registration for international committees!

Enjoy the Olympics while they are still taking place, and we'll revisit this IP again in a few years.

Mission(s) to Mars

As always, whenever I see something IP related (do I need to link to that post yet again?), I tend to take note. About half the time, I look up whatever I saw later. 

So of course when I was reading a book from Fondren's excellent leisure reads collection (which may look small but those books aren't discarded later, they just relocate--so Fondy has LOTS of fun books), and I saw a trademark disclaimer at the start, I could not help but want to learn more. Here's an image:

Disclaimer straight from the book

For context, the book is Girlfriend on Mars by Deborah Willis. If you want to read it, I should have it back to Fondy by Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm plowing through print books lately on the offhand chance that the light from screens is affecting my sleep. I don't stay up playing games or watching videos or scrolling through social media, I tend to stay up and read books, but they're on my iPad. When I started having a hard time reading print because it gets dark and the text is small, I defaulted to that option. 

Sorry, that was much more information about my personal reading habits than necessary.

Back to the disclaimer. The book uses a fictitious company and endeavor called "MarsNow", which bears some resemblance to other commercial space efforts owned by billionaires in the real world, but is not related to the real registered Mars Now trademarks. And there are two that my brief search of the USPTO trademark database found, and two more in the WIPO Global Brand Database. 

Marsnow, no. 5031834, the mark registered to Chen Yong jun of China, is just a simple word mark and fora variety of clothing, mostly sports wear. It also has an international entry but is only registered in the US.

Also in the USPTO database is #MarsNow, which is dead, abandoned, never registered, from 2017, for t-shirts, and submitted by the Tee Party Company. I think it wasn't a strong application. Cool specimen, though. 

Specimen photograph from the TSDR files for #MarsNow

There is also a Marsnow registered in South Korea, which was submitted in 2013. It is now dead, the protection ending in November 2023. I am uncertain what it is for (my Korean is nonexistent), other than "electrical and scientific apparatus", which is the given international class for its goods. 

Finally, there is the last Marsnow, registered in India in 2019. It is protected through 2029, and also class 9, but this one includes more specifications. The record claims primarily mobile accessories for phones and Bluetooth equipment. Unlike all other other Marsnow, it has a cool logo and isn't just a basic word mark.

Intellectual Property India, registration no. 4185381

Well, I guess that's Marsnow. MarsNow. I don't think I would have confused any of those with the fictitious company, but I suppose CYA is important.

Whataburger v. What-A-Burger #13

If you aren't carefully following the exploits of the Kelley Center mascot, Ollie, you may have missed out on a recent post featuring a few Whataburger trademarks. If so, a rather serendipitous event occurred in the IP world recently that compels us to examine their registrations once again. And no, I am not referring to the Whataburger app being a power outage map, although that is pretty innovative use.

Ollie at a Texas Whataburger location, for those of you who missed it

It's about a North Carolina restaurant, What-A-Burger #13, being held accountable for infringement by the now-corporate Whataburger. Instead of rewriting the story and the history of each, here's a link to an article.

Let's go over some extant marks, and speculate on how likely it is to confuse the two, since apparently Whataburger intends to leave its roots and branch out into a mega corporation of fast food in many states. (I have opinions about this and the acquisition of the company by a private equity firm in 2019, but we're also avoiding that today.) 

Documentation of 1975 registration

Initially on Instagram and Facebook, we looked at two marks, one for the iconic striped W plus Whataburger name, and the other for a service mark assigned to the name. But those are just two of many, live and dead. And they are for a variety of goods and services--some for the food itself and others for food service; even charities, playing fields, and more. The name Whataburger alone has quite a few registrations; a brief search reveals 7 registrations for the plain word mark and two for a combo word mark and word appearance. There's a second registration for the W, this one without the whole name, registered in 2016.

2016 registered W

And, since this is a Texas-spawned chain, they also hope to one day own Que Hamburguesa. An application for the word mark was filed in November of 2022, and it is currently under review by an examiner. Learn more here. I only wish they had a specimen!

You'll find these marks, although clearly for the same burger establishment, are owned by two different entities: Whatabrands LLC and Tres Aguilas Enterprises, LLC. Both claim Texas as their location, so without more research (I'm focused on another aspect of this IP; look it up for me if you must know) I assume they are subsidies of the non-Texas private equity firm.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any records of marks, dead or alive, for NC's What-A-Burger #13 in the USPTO's database. That may be due to inadequate searching, or they may not have ever pursued federal registration for a very local brand. And because I do not know enough about the state laws for marks in NC, I can't be certain about state-level registration. I found no claims to any marks on their website, either--not even common law indications. (They have copyrighted it.) It's probably too late now, but I imagine that would have helped them make a case against Whatabuger. 

In my inexpert opinion, it seems highly unlikely the two would be confused. There is no similarity to color scheme or fonts, and the addition of the dashes and the number for only one of the two make it even more distinct. In particular, the fact that both have been around for so many years points to a continued lack of confusion by consumers and earned distinctiveness. An argument could be made that a person unfamiliar with either brand would be confused when first introduced to both, but that is not a scenario likely to play out with any frequency, if ever. The two are made distinct by their history, continued use, and style of products.

Anyway, I don't think this is going to end well for either establishment. Either NC What-A-Burger will be forced to change their name and theme, losing a lot of history and recognition and making TX Whatabuger look like big jerks. Or, TX Whataburger will lose, making them look like ineffective bullies and forcing NC What-A-Burger to pour money they don't have into legal defense.

Swifties, it's your turn for IP

 It's not exactly news that Taylor Swift owns IP. In fact, she's a bit of an IP powerhouse. She owns the Swifties trademark, for example.

But what's new is her most recent filing, coming on the heels of what I've heard is a remarkable year for her. (Can you tell I don't really follow her? I know more about her IP than anything else. It's that curse, again.) She recently registered for a new mark, and fans and the media have been waiting with bated breath to learn what it might mean. 

"Female Rage: The Musical" was submitted for registration to the USPTO on May 11th, and holy cow does it have a LOT of associated goods and services! It lists classes 025, 026, 035, 009, 014, 015, 016, 018, 021, and 041, which means it covers clothing, cell phone accessories, retail store services, musical sound recordings, jewelry, guitar picks, writing journals, and beverage glasses, among hundreds more. I'm not even going to bother trying to list all of them, you can look it up yourself in the TSDR entry for it. 

So just what is in store? Clearly Taylor Swift has made a point to try to cover all of her bases with the new application. it might be a musical, since the final class listed is for musical entertainments. It probably isn't a tour name, since she's still on tour and her most recent album has a different name. Or maybe it's likea concert video she will release?

Honestly, I don't know, and I'm not sure I care. But a lot of other people care, and I try to be relevant. Maybe I'll look at her other trademarks another time, TAS Entertainment group is substantial.

Secret Agent: IP Never Dies

Recently, as I was running an errand before work, I happened to notice an establishment called the 007 Barbershop.

Now, aside from thinking about some of the silliness that is related to giving men's salons names that evoke a certain kind of "manliness", I started to think about... the IP. Yes, it is everywhere, did you not see that blog post/dare? The barbershop in question was using a logo that was purposefully similar to the James Bond 007 logo. While slight alterations were made--scissors instead of a gun, etc.--it was still clearly styled after another highly recognizable IP.

This got me thinking. Would it be possible to register this logo or business name as a trademark at any level? How similar are they? Would the contexts be dissimilar enough to successfully claim distinctiveness and avoid likelihood of confusion?

It's hard to say; let's investigate some IP and see what we might determine. I happen to already know a fair bit about James Bone-franchise related IP (what did I say about the occupational hazard?), but here's a brief review of certain properties and ownership for those who may not have that familiarity. 

First of all, most of the James Bond (regarding the British spy originally conceived of and written by Ian Fleming) now belongs to Danjaq S.A., a Swiss corporation (it has holdings in the US as Danjaq LLC). [I am uncertain how the rights have migrated from probably copyrights for novels belonging to Fleming and (likely) his publishers to a Swiss corporation, but it happened, and that's not our focus today.]

Many of the trademark registrations that are related to the James Bond franchise are therefore international extensions from original Swiss filings. And, apparently, the Swiss are much happier to let corporations clump together many different classes of goods and services under one registration. 

One of the registered marks for a James Bond concept

Among the most recognizable properties is the 007 logo, with and without words, each separately registered. Both have a slew of associated goods AND services (really! they're technically both a service mark and trademark at once), including not only the obvious movie entertainment. The logo without words, registration no. 1739332, includes classes 003, 009, 014, 016, 018, 025, 028, 041. The same eight classes are included for the logo including words (James Bond), registration no. 1737876.

Logo with words, in case you forgot who 007 is

Of course, this is just one set of manifestations of the 007 logo. Several more are registered with a similar number of goods and classes. 

Familiar with the gun barrel sequence? If you've been exposed to any James Bond, you likely are. While I didn't find any motion picture marks, as in registrations for the exact sequence that precedes all Bond movies, I did find a couple registrations for the image of the gun barrel sans blood and Bond. Among them are registration nos. 4671991 and 4190845, which both claim motion picture/DVD/movie recordings as either entertainment or product, and one claims a couple other properties like shirts and fragrances. Again, there are more registrations for that same symbol.

Yep, this is trademarked

Quite a few registrations are listed for titles of Bond films. "But Hannah," I know you're saying, "aren't these movies productions from United Artists? Wouldn't they own the rights?" And you are partially correct--UA is the production company behind the James Bond movies. You may also know that I frequently say IP is very complex and one property may seem to be more than one type. This is especially true when it comes to mega-billion, long-running franchises like James Bond. UA's properties mostly reside in the realm of copyright. Without getting too far into that--really, this is about evaluating the ability to register the name of a salon I saw, not just nerding out over James Bond IP!--suffice it to say that a basic search revealed both Danjaq and UA on a LOT of Bond copyrights. 

A movie title mark, registration no. 3686854

The movie title trademarks are for goods and services that are marketed under those names, not for the movies themselves. So quite a few toys, items of apparel, etc. are all marketed using the titles as a mark, not the creative work.

A lot of familiar phrases and concepts are registered, too. For example, "shaken, not stirred" appears a few times.

This one is dead, though

I also was pleased to find the James Bond theme music registered, no. 4065012. I do so enjoy sensory marks! Visit the link, and the click on the Documents tag, and select any item that is an MP4 to view a movie clip, theatrical trailer, or DVD intro scene, all complete with the theme music. I've watched a few today.

Given what I reviewed, I would be reluctant to register the barbershop's name and logo. While I certainly would not confuse it as being one of Danjaq's holdings, that's in no small part because I have so much familiarity with the relevant IP. Might someone else mistake it? Or would Danjaq just take them to court? It's hard to say, but with some of the Danjaq registrations including beauty/styling products, there just too much similarity for it to easily pass.

 

BONUS! For everyone who follows the Instagram Library Cat, here's a fact that isn't shared in those posts: her name is Jimmi Bond, because she wears a tuxedo just like the British secret agent. And I was also originally informed she was a male cat, and called her James Bond for a few minutes before deciding that such a pathetic little scrap of kitten was more of a Jimmy Bond... and then changed the spelling when I got close enough to see she was female.

The famous Library Cat, Jimmi Bond

Flowbee: As Seen on TV (in 1989)

In a recent conversation with my husband, I mentioned that I needed to give some of my plants a "haircut", but I wasn't sure how to accomplish it. He facetiously recommended I use a Flowbee, and I responded with something along the lines of "Duh whuh?"

He proceeded to try to explain the concept of some kind of vacuum cleaner hair cutter device to me, without the aid of visuals, in a rare moment we were both without our phones. Very little was clarified except that it was fairly well known in the 1980s, mostly through TV advertisements. 

Later, once we were again fully plugged in and had phones available, he showed me a few YouTube videos--including this one I can't embed--that made sense of things, including some 80s and 90s hairstyles. Equipped with a better understanding of a Flowbee, I finally got the joke. But my mind was, of course, drawn to speculating on its IP.

The vacuum hair hero; image taken from flowbee.com

Despite my husband's immediate assurances, I wondered if it was patented.

Turns out, the guy behind the Flowbee™ has his IP locked down.

I'm telling you, not even Rice is this careful about international coverage. 

Yes, it also has trademarks, and this is the official specimen on record

Rick Hunts, the inventor of the Flowbee™, obtained his initial patent for "Hair Clipper" in 14 different jurisdictions, likely through this WIPO patent application. The patent was granted in at least 7 of those, including Germany (twice, potentially reflecting the geopolitical status in the 1980s), Australia, Canada, and the European Union. The US Patent for the Hair Clipper, US 4,679,322, was granted in July of 1987... shortly before I was born. 

There are a few other Flowbee™-related patents that were filed and granted later. These, I presume, are for improvements or new accoutrements, judging by the names "Grooming Attachment for Vacuum-Drawn Clippers", "Vacuum-Drawn Hair Clipper", and "Vacuum-Powered Hair Cutting Guide". All were filed within a few years after the initial hair clipper, but seemingly only in the US. Who knew a vacuum-enabled hair clipper could have so many improvements?

Hunts also owns a design patent in the US for the "Vacuum Cleaner Hose Attachment", D311,616. 

Apparently a distinct ornamental design

Today, all of the Flowbee™ patents have expired, so it's possible there are many versions available. 

And, as it turns out, I could have used one adapted for plants, because my pruning was a mess.

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.

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: