Stephen Hawking as a registered trade mark

Stephen Hawking, the eminent Cambridge professor, applied on the 2 March 2015 for his own name as a trade mark in a number of activities.

You can register your name as a trade mark under UK law, or an agent or company can do so on your behalf. Anyone else trying to do so is guilty of "bad faith". I remember someone coming into the British Library saying he wanted to register the names of the Beatles. We checked, and three, I think, had registered their names (there's certainly Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr).

Hawking's applications are UK00003097042 and UK00003097043 which between them cover seven classes of named activities. Having classes means that a trade mark like Swan can be used for a variety of services or product and not just by one company covering all activities.

If registered, they will only be valid for the UK, but the option is available under the Paris Convention to apply for protection in for example the USA or the European Union provided this is done within 6 months. It is still possible to do so beyond six months, but if someone else applies before you do then you lose out.

According to an article on the LiveScience website, Stephen Hawking wants to trade mark his name, by Tanya Lewis, Hawking's intention is to block someone else trying to use his name to sell in the areas listed in the applications.

A few years ago I posted on my old work blog about David Beckham and his wife Victoria as brands, where they and their advisors made very effective use of the intellectual property system, including registering David's signature. Quite a few people have done so. Paul Gascoigne, the retired footballer, applied for a number of UK trade marks, all now "dead" and not valid, and several bearing his signature, as shown below in the list of results.

He still has a valid registration in Europe, EU010619732.

Other celebrities who have registered their name or signature include Olivia Newton-John, Alex Ferguson, Ozzy Osbourne... and also Ed Milliband, who was registered by the Labour Party in 2011.

I imagine that it gets more tricky in law when the name is of someone who is dead, such as Ella Fitzgerald and Michael Jackson, who besides registrations when he was alive such as a 1985 filing, had a filing made months after his death.

The UK jurisdiction has had a number of disputes about the right to use a name, or a trade mark close to a name, such as Albert Einstein, Jane Austen, Elvis Presley and Marlene Dietrich. There is also a European-wide case regarding Pablo Picasso.

Fictional characters and the names of teams or other entities or television programmes can also be involved in disputes over who has the right to use it in commerce. It all comes under the umbrella term of "character merchandising."

It reminds me of a 1920s court case when a man called Albert Hall decided to form an orchestra. In those days it was normal to call an orchestra after the leader, so he called it the Albert Hall Orchestra. He was taken to court by the Royal Albert Hall who claimed that he was trying to give the impression that he was connected with them. The judge, finding for the defendant, said that if you were called Albert Hall it was perfectly reasonable that you would call your orchestra the Albert Hall Orchestra.

However, a man called Henry Harrod who opened a business in New Zealand and called it Harrods was opposed by the famous department store. Apparently people might have thought that there was a connection. The action was dropped when many businesses in the town changed their name similarly, and indeed the town changed its name temporarily to Harrodsville.

The top brands in 2014: YouGov's BrandIndex

The YouGov BrandIndex 2014 site has a wealth of data on popular brands, widely interpreted, from many countries. I wrote a similar post last year on the 2013 data.

Thousands of interviews are carried out daily to identify the best known brands. The UK brand rankings listed as top ten the following. If they were in the top ten in 2013, that rank is in brackets.

1 Aldi [food retailer] [4]
2 Lidl [food retailer]
3 John Lewis [retailer] [2]
4 BBC iPlayer [broadcasting] [1]
5 Dyson [consumer products manufacturer] [5]
6 Waitrose [food retailer] [8]
7 bbc.co.uk [broadcasting]
8 Netflix [film hire]
9 Marks and Spencer [retailer] [6]
10 MoneySavingExpert.com

We British certainly know how to shop. Only one, Dyson, is actually a manufacturer.

There are the top ten US brand rankings:

1 Amazon [online retailer] [1]
2 YouTube [broadcasting] [6]
3 Netflix [film hire]
4 Subway [takeout food retailer] [3]
5 Samsung [electronics manufacturer]
6 Apple [electronics manufacturer]
7 Google [Internet search services]
8 Lowe's [retailer] [5]
9 Ford [car manufacturer] [2]
10 Cheerios [breakfast cereal] [9]

Apple is back after two years off the index. Why Cheerios, there just as it was last year ? I'd have thought Kellogg's would have more recognition.

The site gives older figures, and even rankings within sectors. A dozen other countries such as Germany, France, China and Japan are also available.

Teaching intellectual property at school

Recently I ran a class teaching intellectual property to high school students at the American School in London.

I've done this several times now at the same school for their Technology and culture elective course, which is taught by Mariam Mathew. I hadn't been in a school since 1972, and it did feel strange at first !

For the first time I was the teacher, with a class plan covering what I wanted the twelve students to learn. I was wielding the chalk, only there wasn't a piece of chalk in sight. Apple® equipment was everywhere, including in front of them (the school uses that platform exclusively), and the students were clustered around a long table rather than in the rows of desks I was used to. The atmosphere was relaxed and talkative rather than formal.

There was also a readiness to have informal learning in groups, where conclusions were given by a spokesperson. I don't remember that ever happening at the schools I atteneded, yet these are perfectly normal in everyday life, especially work. Here's a photo of the class.

The aim of the course is to bring out the interaction between technology such as software and people -- it is easy to take it all for granted. When I was at school computers were never mentioned, while now schools would be considered failures if they were not tightly integrated into everything.

My 75 minute class explained the basics of intellectual property -- patents for function, designs for looks, trade marks for branding products or services, and copyright for authorship -- and I passed around a coffee cup sleeve and lid to show how such mundane objects contained these elements. One had the patent number on it of Beverage container holder, as illustrated below -- the classic sleeve with a green logo which wraps round Starbuck® coffee cups. It covers the machinery for making the sleeves.

I also mentioned software a lot. The two most popular posts on my blog are about Snapchat® and WhatsApp, which are patented apps. I've never used them, but when I asked if anyone used them nearly every hand shot up. Like it or not, software is already part of young people's lives even if they don't stop to think about how they are thought of, made available and protected as concepts. The mind boogles at what might be happening in thirty years' time.

I set the class the task of identifying as many features in Apple as they could think of and presenting their results, and finished by briefly demonstrating how to use Espacenet. I then let them loose to have a go on the database themselves.I think they enjoyed that most of all ! It set their imaginations free to look for anything that interested them, although a few were dazed at the prospect and couldn;t think of anything until I prompted them.

Of course, a 75 minute class could only be a taster of what a complex subject like this is about. I found the experience stimulating and fun, and would be happy to run similar classes at schools or colleges in the London area.

The "patent" for Oreo® cookies

We bought a packet of Oreo® cookies today at the local supermarket, and it made me wonder about the history of the product, a kind of "sandwich cookie."

I had a look on Google (for Oreo + cookies + either history or patented) and found several sites which mentioned the 6 March 1912 as the date of origin, and some which said that it was patented on "March 6, 1912, U.S. Patent No. 0093009." For example, the New York Daily News obituary of Sam Porcello.

The TimeToast timeline for Oreo® cookies also attributes that date to the patenting of the cookie.

According to the Wikipedia article on Oreo cookies,Sam Porcello held five patents relating to the cookie. A 2012 obituary for him in Time magazine was cited for this.

Well, I was surprised. There are a few patents for food products -- Toblerone® and Tabasco® sauce come to mind, as respectively Swiss patent 46708, filed for in 1909 and US patent 107701, filed in 1870. Yet I did wonder what was novel, even then, for the concept of two sweet layers with a creamy layer between them.

As I collect the patent numbers for the first patent for well-known products or processes I began some research. "Patented", in theory, meant the date the rights were granted, and would be the same day as publication.

The 6 March 1912 was a Tuesday, and American patents were at the time only published or "issued" on Wednesdays. So the date couldn't be the issue date.

Could it be the date a patent was applied for ? No apparent patent fitted -- and Sam or Samuel Porcello did indeed have five American patents between 1976 and 1989, mainly for Nabisco, for e.g. filler cream containing soybean oil, but this was obviously far too late for my purposes.

What about the number 0093009 ? It was wrong as a published utility patent number or as a design patent number as the dates would have been published in 1869 or 1934 respectively.

What about it being a filing number ? I wondered if it was a trade mark filing number. I went to my old standby, the free TMQuest database by Minesoft and asked for Oreo as an exact mark and the year 1912. I did not specify filing, registration or publication.

I got the one result, and said to myself "Bingo." US trade mark Registration number 0093009 was applied for on the 14 March 1912 and was registered on the 12 August 1913. The number matched perfectly if not the date.

I can't account for the 6 March 1912 -- perhaps that was the day the name Oreo was chosen to be a trade mark -- but this little saga does show how careful one has to be in carrying out research. Far from being patented (for the cookie itself or how to make it), the product was simply, and quite rightly, given a brand name.

I suspect that people have been innocently repeating the wording without checking further.

Dragons' Den: The YoungOnes

A week late, I watched an episode of Dragons' Den which was first shown on the 15 September. I was interested in the pitch for YoungOnes by Chris Rea, 21, and Tom Carson, 23, with their price competitive "onesies" for university students. They are themselves from Exeter.

The name of the business (with a website) refers to student rebellion and to a BBC programme shown 1982-84, with a truly anarchic sense of humour that I for one found hilarious. I'm not sure how much young people respond to something three decades old, but maybe that doesn't matter. They knew their facts, even if they were nervous under the questioning. They were confident that the vogue for onesies would continue.

They offered 15% of the equity in exchange for £75,000, which valued the company at £500,000. The dragons had fun putting the onesies on, but for some reason they were marked YO rather than YoungOnes. Peter Jones pointed out that Yo was owned as a trade mark by Simon Woodrofe's Yo ! Limited. You don't actually own every business sector with a trade mark (unless it's a "famous" trade mark) but indeed Yo! does own a European trade mark for it in Class 25, which covers clothing, EU 637637. The boys should have done their homework.

(So, to be honest, should have Evan Davis, the respected economics voice on the programme, who spoke of concerns over "copyright" -- trade marks are not the same as copyright, as you cannot copyright a few words).

What the boys do have is the British trade mark for YoungOnes for clothing, with UK2648803 (owned by youngones apparel ltd.). That's the far more attractive (and safe) name they should have put on the onesies.

The verdict ? Duncan Bannatyne offered them, with his usual poker face, the whole £75,000 in return for 40% of the equity. He was asked if he would take 30%. No, he said, it was a fair offer. They discussed it, and one said he didn't know he would say to his father, and they accepted. Duncan was very pleased, saying it was a great opportunity for him. The mentioned father had said they should never give away more than 30%, incidentally.

There is more about the business on an Exeter business page. Their degrees are very relevant -- Chris' was in business and psychology, Tom's in business management and marketing. Watch out for the product on university campuses !

Football trade marks

With the World Cup almost here, let's look at some football (soccer) trade marks from the European Community trade marks database, e-Search.

They always say you should start at the beginning. Some years ago I heard a talk by someone about Sheffield FC, a club which started in 1857 as the first football club ever. My question is, who could they play against ? Here is their rather magnificent trade mark, applied for as 008592339 (with a much clearer image) by the awkwardly named "1857 Sheffield F.C. the World's First Football Club Ltd." for numerous classes of goods.

Then there was the first World Cup tournament, which was won by Uruguay in 1930 (they also won in 1950). A good quiz question: how many South American countries have won the World Cup ? Those who know little of football assume it's two, but Argentina in 1930 and Brazil in 1950 lost the finals.

The image below is presumably from a contemporary poster. It was applied for by FIFA in 2006 as 0896057.

In 1938 Italy beat Hungary 4-2 in the 3rd tournament. Here is another poster by FIFA marking the tournament. A better image can be seen at 00896056.

The 2006 tournament was held in Germany. Very different artwork was used for the following image, which was in fact withdrawn and was not registered. A better image can be seen at 002741296.

Turning to this current tournament, here are two trade marks by FIFA, 009283921...

...and 011529311.

In 2013 FIFA applied for an image of the Jules Rimet Cup itself, 012100125.

Of course it's not all about the World Cup. I have only posted on the trade marks of one football club, and it was Manchester City, in January, who are now England's champions.

Coming second, after looking like about to win it, were Liverpool, with this impressive trade mark, 002695146.

Manchester United, who have won so many championships, were not a contender this season. 000761312.

There are often in fact multiple registrations covering variants or different activities. And in case anyone is wondering, Football World Cup has been registered by FIFA as 006939298 for numerous classes.

The only way is Essex: an infringement ?

I saw in today's Metro free newspaper that a fish and chip shop in Ongar, The only way is Fish, has been accused of infringing the rights of TV show The only way is Essex. It is supposed to be a reality show (though I must admit it looked scripted to me) about attractive, young, prosperous people in Brentwood, Essex.

According to the article, the letter they received said that Lime Pictures had copyrighted the use of "The only way is..." The shop was also said to be using a similar logo.

I see three puzzles here. I am not a lawyer or patent attorney, and these are my understandings of UK law.

(1) You cannot, in the UK, apply to copyright something. You use it and then assert it.

(2) You cannot assert copyright over a sentence, or over a title of a book or a show. You can, however, register trade marks for specific goods or services (a subtly different area of intellectual property).

(3) Lime Pictures has registered The only way is Essex for numerous activities, but not for Class 43, which includes catering services.

The company is on sounder ground if they claim that the shop is trading off the reputation of the show, or using the logo unfairly. Even if the big company does not suffer, they rarely like a small business being (as they would see it) cheeky. They have gone to a lot of trouble publicising the mark, and tend to resent anyone cheapening their image and -- as they see it -- exploiting the work that they have done. They also tend to have deeper pockets.

There are 8 UK and one pan-European registrations (EU12637591, which lists items as required within many classes). Here is the logo as in that EU trade mark:

The UK registrations use a different version:

It is this general look that the shop has -- unwisely, I would suggest -- used. An article in today's Daily Mail shows the look.

One for the lawyers, of course, but my thoughts are that using both the phrase, and the look of the logo, makes it clear that the similarities are not accidental, and that potential customers will be reminded of the show (which takes place in nearby Brentwood). "Passing off", I suspect, is what can be claimed here. The general principles are discussed in the Wikipedia article on passing off.

Google's trade mark application for "Glass"

Google has been trying to get a trade mark for the word "Glass", I hear. In July 2013 they applied for it for...

Computer software for setting up, configuring, and controlling wearable computer hardware; wearable computer hardware; wearable computer peripherals

...all in Class 9. You register for one or more classes of goods or services, not for everything. It was in a stylised fount, as shown below.

It was rejected, and Google appealed in a letter over 1,928 pages long, though much of that was copies of news articles. The letter can be read by selecting the "20 March 2014 Paper correspondence incoming" (and how ! at that size) on the official electronic file page for Google's "Glass" application. That, in turn, I found by finding the application itself in the very valuable (and free) tmquest database by Minesoft, which is easy to use. I asked for Glass as a trade mark and Google as owner, and clicked on "Legal status" at the top of the full entry. There is a tab for "Documents".

Anyone with the time can read the full file, but briefly the US Patent and Trademark Office argued that the mark was descriptive. The reply was that the "glass" is actually titanium and plastic, so it wasn't. My own thoughts are that using a common noun by itself is not distinctive enough -- how short can a trade mark be ? A German who tried to register an exclamation mark apparently found that it needed to be somewhat longer.

I learnt about the application in today's Daily Telegraph, and what made me choke in my cornflakes was the headline: "Google can't patent "Glass" whatever font they write in, says US officials". They are not actually trying to patent the word, they are trying to register a trade mark for it. In the UK at least (I think they are more savvy in the USA) many journalists think the words used in intellectual property, such as patent, trade mark and copyright, are interchangeable. These words are not: they are used, respectively, for a technical invention; words or logos for goods of services; and for literary, artistic or musical creation. I remember once a journalist phoning me to get, he said, the right wording on an invention story. I dictated to him the wording he should use, but at some point this was altered so that the printed story didn't make any sense. Oh well, I had tried (and at least I was not credited as the source).

Google had already applied, in September 2012, to register Google Glass. This has been opposed and is awaiting a hearing at the office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board [the US uses the spelling trademark, the UK trade mark]. This is stated in the electronic file page for the "Google Glass" application. Incidentally, the Daily Telegraph article said "the company has already trademarked the term "Google Glass"", but this is not true.

Many people think that a search on Google will find them everything hidden away on the Web, but in this case, as in many others, expert help is needed to get at the facts.

Manchester City's intellectual property

The annual report of Manchester City football club states that in the year to 31 May 2013 they made £47 million from selling "intellectual property". Of this, £22.5 million was sales to related parties, and £24.5 million from selling to third parties, such as, perhaps, a rumoured New York franchise. No other details were disclosed.

These helped bring their losses down from £97.1 million to £51.6 million. Their revenue was £271 million, up from £231 million. The wage bill of £233 million helps account for the loss. And sounds huge to me ! There were also big losses in buying and selling players (that is, they were paying a lot more than they were receiving).

But what is the intellectual property of the club ? Some may be sponsorship and partnership deals with companies such as Nike and Etihad Airways, but much I guess is trade marks in the form of sportswear and other items where the club sells rights to use the club regalia in return for, probably, royalties, or perhaps for cash sums. Hence you can buy their shirts as made by clothing companies in sports wear shops and the like.

In 1972 Manchester City applied for the following, still current, trade mark.

This was for six classes. You don't just register for everything, but for specified goods or services in specified classes. The idea is to allow different owners to use say Swan for different activities, so long as they don't conflict. Nobody expects a maker of matches to rent cars as well. In this case, Class 6 with key rings and key chains turns up, as it nearly always does for sports clubs and bands, as they are cheap memorabilia.

In 1997 they applied for this modified version. Still the ship, but no rose. It has less detail which makes it easier to reproduce clearly on small items.

This time there were 9 classes, which include such items as teddy bears, romper suits and baby boots. If you think you might sell it, just put it in, as failure to do so could mean someone trying to sell it.

Also in 1997, there was a version using the club's Latin motto, superbia in proelio. It means "Pride in battle".

And there is a colour version as well. Judging from the Manchester City FC website this is the favoured, modern version.

MCFC, Man City and Manchester City F.C. have also been registered, among other variants. This is a complete list of the UK registered trade marks. The same eagle is Manchester's symbol as a city, it seems, as the City Council registered it for many uses in 2008 as EU 6804462 through the pan-European EU system, as shown below.

Such registrations only cover the UK, and big sports clubs are global in their ambitions nowadays, especially with syndicated broadcasts and the reach of the Internet. The same colour insignia shown above was only published for "opposition", prior to registration, in the USA on the 21 January 2014, having been filed for in 2012. Many foreign countries were designated in a filing for the same, also in 2012, through the Madrid Agreement, which is an international treaty.

Hence we have football, business and intellectual property all coming together.

i-hut®: the seriously cool caravan

i-hut® is the trade mark of what the company calls a "seriously cool caravan". It is made of wood which to me gives a Scandinavian look, and is designed so that it can function as a second home. 

UK law allows certain designs to be classed as temporary so that they can be sited in, for example, your garden without the need to ask for planning permission. Although really a structure, the i-hut® has wheels and a towbar so it can go anywhere with planning permission for a caravan. The website gives lots of details including photographs. 

The brochure I have in my hand, most of which is reproduced on the website, states that

The i-hut name and logo is a registered Trade Mark and the i-hut design is registered at the Patents Office. If you try to pinch it, we'll set the dogs on you !

It is commendable that a company takes so much interest in its intellectual property. Maybe the dogs are a bit much. It is in fact the Patent Office, not the Patents Office, and I would have preferred to have seen the familiar ® logo attached to each use of the trade mark, which is indeed registered for the UK for caravans and other classes, in the brochure and the website. I also prefer to see specific design or patent numbers listed. 

I found two relevant UK registered designs for the distinctive look. Below is the drawing page sent in for UK Design 4021158.

Below is the drawing page sent in for UK Design 4021159. 

They were by Charteroak Estates, who also registered the trade mark. 

There are two models, with each available as a road legal or non road legal version. Full use is made of space above head level, in the apex of the roof, for storage or sleeping. The longer version is 36 feet long and the shorter 18 feet. The costs run from just under £30,000 to £45,000 plus optional extras. 

The need for space is of course paramount in cramped spaces such as caravans or small yachts. This is why the idea of a room that slides out when the caravan is at rest has become popular. An example, given below, is taken from US2006117673. 

Here is a list of some US patent specifications for slide-out provision in "recreational vehicles". 

The top brands in 2013: YouGov's BrandIndex

Today's City AM free newspaper had an article about the top brands of 2013 in the UK. It was taken from a source I'd never heard of before: YouGov's BrandIndex website.

Thousands of interviews are carried out daily to identify the best known brands. The UK brand rankings listed as the top ten:

1.iplayer [broadcasting]
2 John Lewis [retailer]
2 Samsung [electronics]
4 Aldi [food retailer]
5 Dyson [consumer products]
6 Marks and Spencer [retailer]
7 bbc.co.uk [broadcasting]
8 Waitrose [food retailer]
9 Sainsbury's [food retailer]
10 YouTube

No Apple, as the newspaper article pointed out (it was no. 6 last year).

The top 25 US brand rankings, of which the top ten are:

1 Amazon [online retailer]
2 Ford [car manufacturer]
3 Subway [takeout food retailer]
4 History [broadcasting]
5 Lowe's [retailer]
6 YouTube [broadcasting]
7 Walgreens [retailer]
8 V8 [vegetable drinks]
9 Cheerios [breakfast cereal]
10 Kindle [e-book reader]

Again no Apple.

Older figures are given, and even rankings within sectors. A dozen other countries such as Germany, France, China and Japan are also available.

It is clear that "brand" is widely interpreted, and while some of the names or words are trademarked some may not be. I'm very surprised that online sites such as Amazon aren't more prominent for the UK. Samsung's strength in the UK doesn't surprise me -- I myself have one of their Android phones (it could work better, though) and one of their laptops. A lot depends on how the interviews are conducted -- do those interviewed volunteer names or are they prompted, is it only knowing a brand rather than approving of it that matters. I must admit I'm amazed a breakfast cereal made it into the top ten for the US.

The site is worth exploring -- there's a list of the top five social media sites for the US, for example.

The Morpher® folding helmet

The Morpher® folding helmet is an invention by Londoner Jeffrey Woolf. The idea is (simply ?) a helmet that folds up neatly to make it easier to take with you before or after cycling.

There is a detailed website which links to a video about it (which, unfortunately, has a strange echo when Woolf explains the idea). The site claims that it has been "patented worldwide" but I couldn't find any granted patents -- I think they mean that they have applied for patents worldwide which is a different matter.

World patent application Collapsible helmet has the main drawing shown below.

There are a number of panels joined to each other so that it folds down the middle to form a slim shape. The World search report at the end of that document cites an American patent as having some similarity, Roy Shifrin's Foldable padded helmet. Its main drawing is shown below.

I notice that the website, while once correctly using the form Morpher®, again and again simply mentions that the product is called Morpher. If you have taken the trouble to register your trade mark, as Woolf has done in the EU, you should always use the ® suffix as it shows that you have a registered trade mark, and are serious about your intellectual property.

Incidentally, while many British cyclists use protective helmets, they are little used on the European continent.

Doctor Who and trade marks

The TV series Dr Who is at its 50th anniversary. Here, in a reworking of an old post from my old work blog, is a look at trade marks associated with the show.

There were 1976 filings for the name itself as a logo:

These are no longer active. Then there were filings for a new version, in 1984:

Also no longer active. Then there were filings for a new version, in 1988:

The series ended in 1989 but oddly there was a 1996 filing, so presumably money was still being made from fans:

There was the filings in 2005, when the show was relaunched.

In 2009 the last look, in versions including a black and white look:

There were more than one application for each as different services and product areas were involved. Each logo reflects a different cultural look, suitable for its time, and the last two certainly reflect the expensive look of the modern show.

The official database I used to find these trade marks doesn't provide a link to lists of results (why not ?), so to find the 28 registrations listed for DOCTOR WHO go to the official website and enter that wording as a Word search, search type "contains string", The results, if clicked on, show the services or products involved for each registration. Some are EU registrations, available from the newish OHIM office.

Turning to the means by which the Doctor travels, there's the image of the Tardis in UK trade mark 2104259:

It was applied for in 1996, and was the subject of a dispute with the Metropolitan Police, as it is a police telephone box, where members of the public telephone the police for help. It was registered in 2002 after a Patent Office examiner in a hearing pointed out that the police boxes weren't used for that anymore. The decision gives 15 pages discussing the matter, and rejecting the Metropolitan Police's objection.

THE TARDIS, meanwhile, was safely registered in 1976, as was, oddly enough, a registration for that word plus a black and white image of a police box, also in 1976, as UK trade mark 1068700, though only for toys and games, as shown below.

THE DALEKS was registered as long ago as 1964, while CYBERMEN dates back to 1996 (these are enemies of the good Doctor). Even SONIC SCREWDRIVER has been registered (sadly, not for tools).

I see that two 2012 applications through the European system by Canal + Image UK, DR WHO AND THE DALEKS and DALEKS' INVASION EARTH: 2150 AD have been opposed by the BBC and hence are awaiting a decision.

Happy anniversary, Doctor Who.

Apple's store design trade mark

I've just come across a story on Apple registering a trade mark for the appearance of their stores.

Steve Jobs was responsible for Apple opening sleek, attractive and expensive-looking stores in busy central city sites rather than in out of town sites. People said it would never work, yet the stores typically have the highest sales per square foot in each city. There is a minimum of stock, and the emphasis is on getting consumers to try out the products and receiving free advice -- and, of course, placing orders. There are  now over 400, with 37 plus in the UK alone.

Apple always wants to protect the look of their products, and it seems that their stores are no exception. I was alerted to this by a story on Mashable called Apple Store Design gets trademark approval.

There are two, one in black and white and the other in colour, and were both registered on the 22 January 2013 as # 4277913-14.. Below is the colour version.

Below is the black and white version.

Trade marks (trademarks in US use) must be registered for one or more classes or activities rather than for everything, and these are in Class 35, with their specific activity spelt out (as required):

Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto. FIRST USE: 20060900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060900

As the article says, a description of what the trade mark looks like is given. In full, for the color version it states:

Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and a oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items are considered to be part of the overall mark.

I must say that it's hard to see all that detail in the drawings.

What surprises me is how they intend to use the trade mark. Are people really going to identify the stores by seeing these drawings in advertising ? And why such a detailed description of the interior ?

A cynic might say that the aim was to discourage others from using the distinctive look of the stores. That is the role of registered designs (design patents in the US).

The distinctive staircases are the subject of two design patents and one utility patent application, as shown on the IfoAppleStore website.

Apple's watch invention

The TechCrunch website has just announced that Apple has had a US patent granted for a disappearing bezel for an electronic watch to enable a bigger screen to be visible. Published today, it's US 8447114.

The problem with putting screens on tiny devices is that it's hard to see anything. Any ability to enlarge the screen is highly beneficial for the user -- and for those who wish to communicate with them.

But what do you call it ? In December 2012 Apple applied for the Taiwan trade mark iWatch in Class 9, which includes software, as quoted in an article on the MacRumors website.

If they want a US trade mark for that trade mark, the problem is that in August 2012 OMG Electronics applied for that trade mark with 85703706 in Class 9 -- but failed, inexplicably, to say it was for watches as well as various listed devices.

Earlier still, in July 2007 Platinum International Holdings applied for 77236688 for iWatch, again in Class 9, but mentioned "cell phones watch". This has not yet been registered, which is odd after six years.

This could be important, as listing goods is sometimes vital when the identical trade mark co-exists in the same class, on the grounds that they can't be confused. The earliest company to file gets the trade mark. You can quote a "priority", when you first filed it within 6 months in another country, to get an earlier filing date.

Forbes Magazine has an article on the subject which cites the Taiwan data.