COPYRIGHT Your baits?

[vishezfish]

Just wondering if anyone has done this?

If so what was involved in doing so??

Thanks

VF

[Senkosam]

You can copyright a lure's name only, but not get a patent for one. Nothing that immitates nature can be patented per the U.S. patent office. You can sell an exact copy of a Senko, but not sell it under that name.

Sam

[MagicBob]

Its nonsense that you can't patent a lure. The patent office is full of thousands of patents on lures that "immitate" nature. The key difference between a copyright and a patent is that a patent protects function and a copyright protects content. In order to patent a lure it must "do" something novel. A lure cannot be copyrighted. However you could potentially get a "design" patent which covers only the appearance of a lure, but the appearance cannot have any functional purpose. If all of this is confusing get a book on the subject or talk to a lawyer.

[Senkosam]

cop?y?right

The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Is the Senko patented?

[MagicBob]

You are confusing copyright with trademark. The name Senko is a registered trademark. The Senko is not patented, but that's because Yamamoto failed to do so not because he couldn't have.

[Delw]

Copyright:

Main Entry: 1copy?right

Pronunciation: -"rIt

Function: noun

: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)

trademark:

Main Entry: 1trade?mark

Pronunciation: -"m?rk

Function: noun

1 : a device (as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller

2 : a distinguishing characteristic or feature firmly associated with a person or thing

patented:

Main Entry: 3pat?ent

Pronunciation: 'pa-t&nt, British also 'pA-

Function: transitive verb

1 : to obtain or grant a patent right to

2 : to grant a privilege, right, or license to by patent

3 : to obtain or secure by patent; especially : to secure by letters patent exclusive right to make, use, or sell

- pat?ent?abil?i?ty /"pa-t&n-t&-'bi-l&-tE, British also "pA-/ noun

- pat?ent?able /'pa-t&n-t&-b&l, British also 'pA-/ adjective

Delw

[redg8r]

just to make it clear for vishesfish:

Copyright: protects content, examples are written works like books, website content etc.

Patent: many varities covers design apperance, function etc.

Trademark: can protect images, logos, brand names, etc.

which one fits what your inquiring about?

if your wanting to protect your physical baits design, then yes a design patent is what you may be looking for.

heres an example: http://listingshop.agentxsites.com/PatentData

if your just wanting to protect a name, like "BassBusteR" [example] then a trademark might be in order.

hope that helps.

( Del posted at the same time even better)

[clemmy]

Well, I'm no expert, but if GY would have patented the Senko, it would have had to been in 1 of 2 different ways: First, he could have patented the shape of the lure, claiming it gave his lure unique, non-obvious and desirable properties (perhaps the horizontal fall when properlly rigged), and 2:The composition. (This would have been silly of him to do, as everyone could then copy it with minor changes such as slightly different chemicals, etc. He's instead kept it as a Trade Secret, which has no protection but is more secure in some ways--much as coke has never patented it's recipe)

That is a good reminder about trademarks tho, those with company names should start using the tm, even if they don't want to go through the expense of registering it...

[earthworm77]

Here is a question regarding trademarks. Can you trademark a bait color.

For example:

Lure maker X wants to trademark the color Red shad or any other color name for that matter. Can he do it?

I've seen a manufacturer list trademarks on colors on his website but a check with the Trademark office came up that the names were not registered in any way. I am curious because I have baits that are made in these colors and I certainly do not want to encroach on a guys legal rights....but if he is bluffing, trying to scare others off from using the name, I'm going to burn his house down!

Can an individual be penalized for making a false claim on a trademark? .......I claim I trademarked the color Red shad but really didn't although I list it on my website as trademarked.

[clemmy]

Well, I think you can tm a color, as long as it's a unique color, for example Hughsey probally could have tm'd "Table Rock Shad" when he first named it, so no other lure maker's could call a color scheme that.

Now that so many have copied it, he no longer can as it has become the common name for that color scheme. For example, show a bassman any soft plastic with a version of black back and red belly, ask him what color it is, he'll tell ya red shad, so it's not trademarkable...

But say your next jig skirt color scheme you name "munch blue", that I believe could be trademarked. Others could still make a skirt/lure in "munch blue", but could not list it as "munch blue" as the color. Of course, if it was wildly successful, you'd make a ton of money, but then everyone would know it as "munch blue" and so you could no longer enforce your tm.

That said, I'd say we're pretty close to the senko being commonized, although many still do refer to them as "stick-bait"...

also, if I remember correctly, the term for losing your tm due to overwhelming market share making it the known term (such as xerox for a copy) is "genericide".

[MagicBob]

Actually the Senko is licensed as to its formulation under Larew's patent covering salt impregnated lures. Patent number 4,530,179, Larew, July 23, 1985. Also Yamamoto could have filed for a design patent covering its appearance, or potentially a utility patent covering its shape based on its effect on the way it falls through the water. The utility patent would be way tougher to prosecute, and frankly I'm not even sure Yamamoto even understood the action himself till later. He has been quoted as saying he was looking for a bait that would cast well. He may have been able to get a patent on that function too come to think of it. The patent office is no longer funded by tax dollars, rather it is funded by license fees and maintenance fees so it has gotten much less stringent on patent examinations. Too late for Yamamoto anyway as you have one year from making you idea public to file for a patent.

Oh yeah, it is illegal to claim to have a patent or trademark if you don't. That is referred to as "restraint of trade" although the only enforcement mechanism would be for someone to bring a civil suit against you, and thats not very likely if you're a smal company.

[Senkosam]

Thanks Bob,

Dave from LC tells everyone that lures are nature-sims and can't get patents. He used the term copyright for trademark, when applied to the name or logo of a product, used to prevent use by another party.

Thanks for clearing that up. He may have been confused by the following:

Improper Subject Matter for Design Patents: a design which simulates a well known, or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute.

"utility" patents are issued for four general types of inventions/discoveries: machines, human made products, compositions of matter, and processing methods.

Senko's and most other soft plastic worms or grubs, do not copy an animal's appearance or their natural motion. (Original Creme worms, Mad Man Craws and Worth Comp.'s realistic, fprage sims do, but only in design, not in utlity (action).) The same applies to Senkos. The unique action is not natural nor is it's appearance. To sell Senko copies poured from LC molds would be an infringement if the Senko design was patented.

Yamamoto could have filed for a design patent covering its appearance, or potentially a utility patent covering its shape based on its effect on the way it falls through the water. The utility patent would be way tougher to prosecute,...

Maybe not, since utility is dependent upon his design.

In general terms, a ?utility patent? protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a ?design patent? protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171).

A design patent application may only have a single claim. 37 CFR ? 1.153. Designs that are independent and distinct must be filed in separate applications since they cannot be supported by a single claim.

but:

Designs are considered distinct if they have different shapes and appearances even though they are related articles.

Scenario 1: Mr. Twister trademarked it's company name and the product name, Phenom. Creme invented the first plastic worm.

Q: If Creme worms were patented, did Twister need to apply for a license to produce plastic worms? The above suggests that Mr. Twister's new design was not an infringement nor was the use of plastisol to make plastic worms, though both products are used to catch fish.

Scenario 2: GY had gotten a patent for the Senko. Did an overlaping infringement of his patent exist with that of Gene Larew? Though the altered design did not have the same exact action as Larew's worms, there was still an infringement of utlity in the use of a salt and plastisol mixture.

Q: Is everyone who sells salted plastics infringing on Larew's patented salt- injection of plastisol as used in soft plastics? Zoom has duplicated the salt injection of the Senko but in a Speed Worm design. Does Woo Daves pay Larew to use the mixture?

note:

the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.

note:

After the patent has expired anyone may make, use, or sell the invention without permission of the patentee, provided that matter covered by other unexpired patents is not used. Patents expire after 20 years.

note: Plants or seeds may be patented (i.e. hybrids, mutants, etc.)(i.e. flowers)

(I'm not a patent lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn recently.) LOL

Sam

[MagicBob]

Don't know about all the various companies in the market, but Yamamoto is making his salt impregnated baits under license from Larew. Check the package for patent number 4,530,179. I believe all the other major companies who make salt impregnated baits are licensed from Larew. That patent is pretty basic meaning if you make a salt impregnated bait without a license from Larew you are infringing. The thing most people don't realize is that enforcement is through civil action only so the only way a teeny company can be stopped is through civil litigation in federal court. So expensive you wouldn't believe it! Unless the patent holder can recover significant damages its just not worth it to them. Large companies usually just try to bully the little guys into compliance with threatening letters and such. On the other hand if they "can" afford it they can put you out of business pretty much permanently. Ya takes your chances.

The only way to determine infringement is to read the claims of the patent and if EVERY part of any of the numbered claims applies to the product in question then it infringes. Otherwise you're clear.

All this may sound way complicated, but it really isn't that bad. It is now a simple matter to go to the Patent Office website (http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html) and look up a patent online. The claims are at the end off the patent in the section which begins "I claim". This is what you look at to determine infringement.

For example here is claim 1 of Larew's patent - "1. In a fishing lure comprising a body part and at least one hook part connected thereto, the improvement wherein said body part is formed of a plastisol of a resin dispersed in an organic solvent, said plastisol being impregnated with sufficient salt to impart a salty taste to said body part." Use salt in a plastic bait and you infringe

[Senkosam]

Good info Bob. Dave from LC should do some homewprk before making statements re: his mold creations for legal sale. He has copied over 100 plastic designs, probably most of which have trademarks and design/utility patents. But the molds are copies of injection mold lures which probably gets the user off the design-hook, (even Senko copies). Zipper worms I'm not so sure of.

Sam

[MagicBob]

Actually, without getting into detail on each individual mold, I don't think there is anything to stop him from selling molds for personal use regardless of whether they are for patented products or not. Not positive on this, but patents basically prevent selling or distributing the final product not the tools unless the patent covers the actual manufacturing process.

The trademark thing is a non issue as all anyone has to do is change the name.

[Senkosam]

Poorly worded:

his mold creations for legal sale

should have been "lures we make and sell using his molds, are liable". Of course he isn't liable for the molds that copy a lure, only the end user would be (if it was even a possibility).

[Kamakazee]

That salt pattent expired more than a year ago.

[MagicBob]

Not! Patents run 20 years from date of issue which for this patent was July 23, 1985. Leaves a little over a year on it.

[vishezfish]

Wow, alot of info here.....

It's funny how the laws work!

[SeminoleFan]

MagicBob, Not to step on your toes but see the link below.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm

Patents are only good for 20 years from the date of FILING.

The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions.

And to view Eugene Lawrews Patent: Filed ON Aug. 26., 1981 And Expired on August 25, 2001. (Hence why everyone has salt impregnated baits) click on the link below.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=4&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&S1='Salt+Impregnated+Fishing+Lure'&OS="Salt+Impregnated+Fishing+Lure"&RS="Salt+Impregnated+Fishing+Lure"

Hope this clears things up a bit and Not to step on anyones toes just trying to set the record straight.

[SeminoleFan]

Not to say a Fishing Lure is not a work of art but the definition of A Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of ?original works of authorship? including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the

>> Library of Congress' Copyright Office. <<

There are times when you may desire a combination of copyright, patent and trademark protection for your work. You should consult an attorney to determine what forms of intellectual property protection are best suited to your needs.

[vishezfish]

Maybe I will patten my designs, I sculpt them myself!

I have 2 plastic sculpts that I made that don't look like anything on the market, but who knows!!

I will post some pics soon and u guys let me know what u think... I would

like to send some out to u all and see if you catch em on it! We r doing very well out here with em so far!!

Vishez fish

[MagicBob]

You are right Seminolefan. I been doing this too long. Under the old system it was 17 years from date of "issue", but the new system is 20 from date of application which means Larew has expired. Thanks for the correction.