classic!!!
Joe Baugess and the Mini simmons: No Mini simmons for u! Steve lis and
the fish: no fish for u!..Simon Anderson and the thruster: No
thrusters for u!..Malcolm and the Bonzer: No bonzers for
u!..Greg noll and the gun: No guns for u!.. Duke Kahanamoku the longboard and surfing: No longboards no surfing for u!
Laird Hamilton and the Stand up paddleboard: No stand up paddleboards for u!..Hooray!
Al "the pal" Nelson correct?
Most everything has been done before, just wait a few decades and it comes around again. Brain surgeons and Rocket scientists, the lot of us.
$$$$$
My feelings exactly. I hope to run into him at Sacred Craft this weekend and have the chance to ask him about it to see what his reasoning/response is.
Yep.
''Pal Al'' Nelson. Easily one of the most talented, and intelligent people I've ever known. And a superb craftsman.
Trademark infringement, first case!
Clarity is such a nasty thing.
Sacred Craft gonna be interesting times for ‘ol Joe B.; someone please hand him Gene Simmons photo and ask for an autograph.
did he copyright “douche-Baug” also??
Regarding above and all the other people seemingly worried here, as an intellectual property attorney, I can tell you that he is not trying to preclude people from copying the shape with a federal trademark registration. He is simply claiming rights in the “mark” Mini Simmons as a source identifier. That is, other people can copy the shape. They just can’t commericialize or market it as a “Mini Simmons”.
This isn’t a bad thing. Trademarks are actually primarily designed to protect/aid consumers. Properly used, trademarks allow customers to quickly ascertain the quality of goods (based on reputation, prior experience with the source, etc.) by using the source identifying mark as an reminder/indicator.
The Campbell Brothers probably should have done the same thing with “Bonzer”. That way, everyone and their mother wouldn’t be able to use that mark and confuse people about the original source of the board.
Assuming the above is true - used and abandoned (that’s what it sounds like from your post).
Under trademark law, someone else can “pick up” the use of the mark upon prior abandonment.
I don't think it was ''used and abandoned'', rather the case that it entered the lexicon of surfing (public domain) as a description of a particular style of board. The trademarking of ''Mini Simmons'' is akin to Paris Hilton trying to own ''That's Hot.'' Another example of some ignorant Dweeb, in Washington, granting exclusive rights for something they have no understanding, or grasp of. THE TERM HAD BEEN IN COMMON USE IN THE SURFING COMMUNITY/INDUSTRY, FOR YEARS, PRIOR TO THE TRADEMARK DATE. I guess someone could trademark ''Pig'', or almost any other descriptive term for different styles of surfboards, eh?
[quote="$1"]
did he copyright "douche-Baug" also??
[/quote]
I think the term ''BOGUS'' in available. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
A word or words consisting of a trademark which enters the public domain can be taken out of the public domain, unlike the subject matter of a patent. Totally fact specific and I have no idea about Mini Simmons except that I didn’t know they existed until their recent prominence. I have no idea what the answer is - just saying that the law does not necessarily preclude what he’s doing.
Others market these same boards just fine without calling them Mini Simmons. Larry Mabile has the Ghost Buster and the White Pony. Should everyone be able to use those names too?
As for “PIG”, if someone started using that as a mark exclusively (and took other steps necessary to protect/maintain associated rights), certainly they should have been afforded the same rights. In terms of it (“PIG”) being descriptive, it is absolutely not descriptive in a legal sense - no lay person would see the word “PIG” and think of a surfboard. Just like “Apple” has nothing to do with computers, “PIG” is totally arbitrary as related to surfboards. I believe “PIG” has probably become generic as representative of a particular shape (because of long-term public association resulting from marketing, etc., not because it is inherently descriptive of surfboards), but that’s a different issue.
Joe is a respected guy, no? Why bash him for actually trying to protect himself here? Everyone wonders why shapers suffer financially. But it’s precisly because most shapers don’t protect themselves in the way that the law provides. If you don’t protect yourself, don’t be surprised when companies (mass manufacturers) from China rip you off and start using your mark/logo or whatever.
All of the above said, the use of someone’s surname (Bob Simmons’) as a mark could be a problem. But, it’s also a problem that can be overcome in some cases. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if the trademark examiner has no idea that Simmons is an actual individual with a siginificant history in surfboards.
Who cares if he trademarked the name. I don’t want to ride those sea-slugs anyways, and I don’t want to shape one dimensional BS boards. Still I wish him all the success and happiness, and I hope everyone I surf with gets one from him, because that just means more waves for me. Kenvin is a great surfer, but on one of the those he is just another buoy.
Mattp would calling a board a “micro-simmons” be an infringement?
I’m simply curious as I’m currently riding a 4’2" prone board with a shape that has elements of a “mini-simmons” and wondered if it could be called a micro-simmons with no problem.
I prefer calling it the gut sliding torpedo but “micro-simmons” has a more commercial ring to it and there-in lies the issue.
Capitalising off the asscociation with the mini-simmons.
Thanks for the info Matt P. I have learned a few things. Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Boughess is or was a client of yours? Just curious.
The fact that they didn’t tells you something about them. They have always freely shared info about their design. I have made bonzers. I call them bonzers. Now, if I called them Campbell Brothers Bonzers that would not be cool.
I haven’t been caught up with the whole Simmons thing, but if I was, I think I’d just call mine a “Mini Bob.”
No problem.
And, no I do not (and have never) represented Joe Bauguess. His attorney - if any - would be of public record, though, if you look up the trademark registration at www.uspto.gov. It’s possible he filed without counsel, however.
I’ve just always been fascinated at the lack of effort that shapers in particular have made throughout history to protect their life’s work.
Don’t treat this as legal advice, but I would say that there is a significantly greater than 50% chance that it would be an infringement considering all the factors (and without analyzing the registration itself for various issues).
If you’re not commerializing with that name, then I doubt you have any issues, obviously.