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.

A History of Coffee Making Inventions

It's quite brief and exceedingly non-comprehensive, this history of coffee-making inventions.

But, coffee! Coffee is delicious and some of us can't morning without it. AND some of the earliest patents that still make sense in modern society are for coffee brewing. 

For example, this 1838 (only a few years after the original patent office was lost to fire) patent, no. 952, Apparatus for Making Coffee and Tea, still looks much like a simple camping coffee pot. It is clearly recognizable as some kind of kettle.

I think it's pretty obviously some kind of kettle

A few decades later, in 1865, we have some improvements for a Coffee-Percolator, patent no. 51,741.  Nason's percolator is decidedly more complex, including some springs to help facilitate the expansion during heating/percolating. Nonetheless, it could still be recognizable to anyone today who makes coffee with a stove top percolator. 

Check out that spring action!

But that doesn't mean there haven't been any changes or improvements in percolators. After all, over a century later, this percolator basket assembly was one of a few 1970s patents obtained by Corning Glass Works--the company that owns Pyrex--for their unique, new, sturdier take on a stove top percolator. Percolator Pump and Basket Assembly, patent no. 3,803,998, is essentially what inspired this post. We have a vintage Pyrex glass percolator on my stove. And, thanks to this position's curse, it got me thinking about coffee maker patents. 

It's not exactly the same as what I use

We drink vintage patented coffee in the Edlund-Arthur household

(I've decided to skip over electric percolators, because while that is also an innovation in coffee brewing, it is also less interesting to me.)

Coffee makers have become very sophisticated machines, even when they aren't restaurant grade or large affairs. For example, the Keurig K-Cup system changed how many people prepare and brew their coffee. In 1994, Keurig obtained patent no. 5,325,765 for this Beverage Filter Cartridge, which is very similar to what we now see lining shelves in stores. 

The first K-Cup iteration

About ten years later, in 2004, Keurig would be granted a patent for their puncturing system that is common to many single-use pod coffee brewing systems today. Patent no. 6,708,600 describes the system in Puncturing and Venting of Single Serve Beverage Filter Cartridge. I have something very similar in my kitchen (but I've upgraded to a reusable pod).

It looks exceedingly complex in this dissected view

Reduce, reuse, recycle!

Keurig hasn't stopped updating their machines, applying for and receiving patents for a number of improvements. Here's a more recent example, a 2018 patent, no. 10,136,754, for  Beverage Machine Cartridge Holder. This cartridge holder is size adjustable, which I can appreciate, because I bought an off-brand reusable pod for my first Keurig and found it didn't fit. 

This is not the same coffee maker in the patent nor is it the first model I purchased that had size issues

For those of you who love some iced coffee, there are patented machines for making specific styles. Among some of the most recently granted patents is no. 12,004,677, Japanese-Style Iced Coffee Maker. I've never been a huge fan of iced coffee unless it's a dessert coffee, but I can understand the appeal on some steamy Houston mornings.

Ice included in the patent figure, just in case

Let me know if you'd like to see some other coffee IP. I rather conspicuously picked patents that were most interesting and familiar to my own coffee habits, but I'd be interested in learning about potential Chemex style patents, or who had one of the first drip coffee brewers patented in the US, for example. I know there are many librarians who survive via coffee, so don't be shy to let me know in comments!

Specifically St. Arnold's IP (Hoppy Anniversary!)

I previously wrote about a tiny selection of St. Arnold's trademarks for Beer Bike in a 2023 post, but as we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the oldest craft brewery in Houston on the 8th, I wanted to revisit the topic. There is always more IP to be found, and perhaps more than just trademarks! We could even speculate about trade secrets. So open your choice of carbonated beverage, be it an IPA, amber, or root beer, and settle in for a little local innovation.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that could potentially be a patent for St. Arnold's, yet again. It's not the first time I've tried. There are many reasons a brewery might have a patent, but the primary reason I've looked more than once is due to my memories of some Saturday tours years ago, from before their more recent major expansion in size. 

Please note that this is coming exclusively from my memory, so if anything is wrong, I apologize in advance. During one of my visits, I recall Brock Wagner explained how they encountered an issue when trying to move one of the ingredients--perhaps the grain??--from its storage to the actual brewing vats. Just like you'd expect of any good Rice graduate, they managed to create an innovative solution. I remember it was based on some basic tools, like chain links and pipe, was perfectly functional yet elegantly simple. I only wish I could find some photos of it, to verify my memory. I sincerely hope this isn't untrue; and I've also sincerely hoped someone might have tried to patent the idea. Alas, neither have panned out in my favor so far.

However, St. Arnold's does own many marks, especially as they've expanded over the past three decades. I found, in a very basic search for marks by owner, 18 in the USPTO database. Not all are live; 5 are dead. Of the 13 live marks, one is pending.

The dead marks include the abandoned word marks for Saint Arnold, taproom and bar services; Divine Reserve, beer; Saint Arnold Summerfest, beer; and Headliner, beer. Weedwacker, worldmark, for beer, was cancelled. 

The one pending but live mark is for Hop Spring, a hoppy, non-alcoholic sparkling water.

12 more marks exist, all as word marks, and mostly for specific beers offered: Santo, Art Car IPA, Pumpkinator, Lawnmower, Tarnation. Of course, there is one for Saint Arnold, with various beers listed. It was first registered in July, 1994.

What is most disappointing about these marks is that they are all simply word marks. As best as I can tell, there aren't any for the designs. The stylized Santo, Saint Arnold with his Texas sun/moon and beer stein, event the serif font with signature red color like their building seem like they should be protected.

I certainly associate this bishop image with their product

At least the labels are interesting, here's a specimen from the Lawnmower TSDR record:

Lawnmower always tastes like summer and baseball games to me

I suppose I can close this out with a trade secret speculation, since I suggested it above. While they may not officially have any, I imagine some of the exact brew recipes are held pretty closely and aren't shared with just anyone. The proliferation of microbreweries, and the increase in home brewing that was popular a few years back, could have made it important. Although any beer that isn't technically an adjunct has the exact same three ingredients (water, barley and hops), there is a ton of variation on the types of hop, the ratios of each, and the steps taken. Reproducing a Saint Arnold beer would take either extensive and excessive experimentation or some advance knowledge. So I'll just say it's possible they have some beer formulas that are protected. After all, each recipe is IP.

Albert Einstein, Patent Examiner

 Did you know that Albert Einstein worked at the Swiss patent office in the early 1900s? I did not, until a patron asked about his work with the USPTO. I felt like that was a little factoid I would know, because the USPTO would absolutely love to tell people about it, so I decided to do a little research.

As it turns out, Einstein was not employed by the US Patent Office. However, he did work for the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

Much like I had imagined the USPTO would have done had it employed Einstein, the Swiss IGE proudly boasts of his time there between 1902 and 1909, and even has a group of webpages dedicated to information about his time there. 

I wanted to try to search for patents he has examined, but it turns out most patents that old are not well-indexed enough to search for with very specific parameters. Of course the Swiss IGE has a few listed that he most likely examined personally (with a disclaimer) because they aren't 100% certain either. From my point of view, it's also not nearly as fun as trying to craft the exact query phrase to find just his patents. 

If you're interested in learning more, here's a link to the Swiss IGE page about Einstein.

And here's a list of the patents they believe he examined personally, copied from their page:   

• Pat.-Nr. 39561 (pdf): Gravel sorter

• Pat.-Nr. 39619 (pdf): Meteorological station controlled by ambient humidity

• Pat.-Nr. 39853 (pdf): Electrical typewriter with shuttle-type carrier

• Supplementary-Pat.-Nr. 39988 (pdf) (to main patent Nr. 38853):

    Alternative-current commentator motor with short-circuit brushes and opposite-mounted auxiliary coils for spark suppression

• Objections to Alternative-current commentator motor (pdf) 

Anyway, check back next week for a lengthier post about IP I was able to actually search for a post.