More aggressive intellectual property enforcement by Taggies and Gerber

Taggies

My most popular blog entries have to do with taggies. Taggies are those square blankets with ribbon loops around all edges. I have received a lot of comments asking what the latest is on the patent and enforcement. I can only repeat what other commenters have stated:

1. The Taggies people are continuing to enforce their patent.
2. The patent enforcement lawyers appear to be going after anyone who has any form of a ribbon loop on a blanket edge, whether it is one ribbon loop or several.
3. No one has taken up the task of challenging the patent.

If Etsy or Ebay receive notice from Taggie's lawyers that the product is a potential infringement, those companies will pull your listing. These companies have little resources to investigate the claims, so legitimate or not the listing will be pulled down. You will not be able to defend yourself. If you list an item in your own store or blog for sale, you will receive a letter directly.

To date, it would appear there is plenty of evidence that the patent can be challenged. Commenters claim they had these style of blankets as children or that they have bought a current home sewing pattern with this style. Patterns and instructions abound on the net as do product listings in various online stores. The Taggies people were the first to obtain a patent and therefore believe they own it despite the evidence that the idea has been around for decades. This only illustrates the problem with the current patent protection system. The system is just complex enough that ordinary people have no idea what patents are being sought and if they should be challenged. The patent bureaucrats and lawyers don't understand the manufacturing processes and how common a folded ribbon loop in a seam is. Who has the time and money to fix the problem? Taggies is expanding into Europe and South America, so despite calls for a boycott the company appears to be growing.

Gerber and the word Onesie

Another aggressive brand enforcement problem has to do with the word onesie. Onesie is a registered trademark brand owned by Gerber. You cannot use that particular word to describe an infant bodysuit or unitard unless it is an actual Gerber branded Onesie. Various acquaintances of mine and online shop owners are receiving threatening letters about their use of this word in their product descriptions. Gerber appears to be ramping up their enforcement of their trademark.

These companies have not technically done anything illegal. They have the right to apply for patent and trademark protection. That protection is only worth as much as they are willing to enforce it. So, IMO, let them waste spend their money on it. The one thing these companies are doing is creating ill will among potential customers and retailers. Customers and retailers have long memories and will think twice about buying or indirectly promoting those products to friends. They may be doing more damage than they know.

Baby and children's apparel products seem to have more patent and trademark protection than other sewn product categories. There are bibs, hand covers, sensory objects, diapers, and so much more that have patent protection. I haven't quite figured out why.

Deciding on whether to file a patent on a new child's product design or not

2019 Note - The amazon affiliate link to the nursing cover above is from a different manufacturer then the one described below. I do not know the current status of the Bebe Aulait patent or protection efforts. Regardless there are dozens of similar ideas on Amazon and other places.

I don't know why, but some baby clothing and accessory designers are under the impression they need to go to extremes to protect their product. This includes patent, trademark, and copyright protection. Maybe it is the inner paranoia of being copied. I don't know. It seems that there are A LOT of baby/child related products that have been patented. Why? Some products are truly patent worthy but most are not. Regardless, patents are only worth as much as the effort used to protect the patent. In other words, it may cost you more to protect your patent than the money you make off it. That isn't true for all products, but for many. For many design entrepreneurs it will be a waste of time and money. There are few processes or ideas that are unique in this industry. Most designs are just reinterpretations or a new combination of existing ideas.

There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.

In addition:

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable

I don't know under which of the three types of patents that Bebe Aulait has filed their patent for their Nursing Cover and I am not sure their claim is truly new or novel. (Bebe Aulait purchased the invention from the inventors and have become the new patent asignees). The idea has been around for a long time (one friend claimed she used one 20+ years ago). I think their claim as an invention centers around the addition of boning (stiffener) in the neckline of the apron that helps hold the apron away from the body. One interesting part of the patent is end caps on the boning. I haven't seen end caps for boning before and I could get behind that one small aspect of the patent. Have any of you seen endcaps for boning before?

In any event, there are some problems with the patent and I think it could be challenged. But who has the time and money. The nursing cover is a glorified apron.

Rumor on the street is that Bebe Aulait is enforcing their patent pending product in the same vein as Taggies, which I have blogged about before. It calls into question the value of their patent since it is so easy to copy. Not that I am encouraging copying. If you do, you will receive a threatening "cease and desist" letter from a lawyer.

I don't know what it takes to challenge a patent. I am sure at some point an IP lawyer will have to be employed and they are very expensive.

Trademarks are issued to brand names. Like patents, it creates a property right over a brand name. I will write about a trademark problem with onesies (owned by Gerber) at a later date. The next problem is copyrights. Taggies claims copyright protection on their products. Such a claim is not valid because there is currently no copyright protection on clothing or textile items. Copyright protection can apply to textile designs such as fabric prints. A measure has been in the works to extend copyright to apparel but is apparently stuck in committee. Such an extension of copyright would have a devastating affect on the apparel industry in the US.

What do you think?

Thanks to MyPreciousKid and Trinlayk for bringing this to my attention.

Taggies brand rompers recalled

I have posted previously about Taggies brand blankets and related products. They are known for aggressively enforcing and protecting their patent on their security blankets. I have previously talked about how this kind of patent is ridiculous, but there is not much that can be done unless someone wants to be a test case in a patent infringement lawsuit.

Anyway, the company Rashti and Rashti (They are listed as the importer and official licensee) has issued a recall for Taggies infant sleepers. The sleepers are being recalled for snaps that can detach. The sleepers were sold in several big box retailers. This kind of recall is not unusual. Improperly applied snaps can easily fall or pull out. Painted snaps should be tested for lead.

I would post the pictures of the sleepers here, but the Taggies people are so aggressive about sending out cease and desists, I don't want any trouble (even though the images are technically in the public domain). Just follow the links to the official recall notice. There is a small link on the main Taggies page about the recall.

BTW, if you visit the What's New page at the Taggies website, you can see the types of products they will attempt to protect with their patent. The patent is supposed to protect related products and you can see their version of related products is extensive. All they've done is add ribbon loops to various products. To me this is not a question of protecting a unique product worthy of a patent. Instead it is a form of brand protection over a certain look. I am still flummoxed on how they achieved patent protection over the simple idea of inserting a ribbon loop into a seam. Maybe I should try to patent shoelaces?

Warning - Taggies Blankets have a patent

You probably have seen them. These blankets are made of two squares of fabric with ribbon loops sandwiched around the edge. I have seen them sold on Ebay, online web sites and demonstrated in blogs and mommy discussion groups. Some well intentioned new designer could find themselves in a heap of trouble if they attempt to sell a similar product.

This is the kind of patent I dislike. The product is so simple. There is nothing unique to the concept other than the brand name. It is easy to copy and reproduce. It would be easy to unintentionally copy the concept. Just attach a ribbon loop to a product, and oops - patent infringement. (This particular patent extends to related products and not just the blankets, and would, of course, have to be tested in a court of law).

This is how the designer intends to treat potential customers and fellow designers. The designer states:

In our appreciation of your notification of any product infringements that you may find, a donation of TAGGIES will be made to a charity. In addition, your first name and state of origin only will appear on our Random Acts of Kindness page as sincere recognition of your efforts.

I think there are better ways to protect your product. Try superior product quality, customer service, shopping experience. Sure, others will copy and imitate, but you can do better in all of those areas. Build loyalty on trust - not threatened action.

Patent protection is only as valuable as the intended enforcement of the patent owner. This designer is actively protecting her patent and products. (They claim copyright protection too, although that claim is rather dubious IMO). Anyway, just a warning to any other designers - stay away from the "Taggies" concept.

[This blog entry has been edited to remove some of my stronger opinions on this subject. If you would like to share your opinion, please leave it in comments.]

Stewart Girl's Dress pt. 2 : Testing the idea

As a continuation from my first entry on this topic, I made up some samples to illustrate the sewing problem. (Click on the images for a better view).

This is how the pattern might look. I suspect the slit would be similar to a dart. The top of the slit is angled upward. I left the bottom of the slit on grain, but it probably should angle down too, making it a true dart, and not a slit.








This is how the sample looks sewn. The yellow arrows indicate the direction of sewing each dart if sewn with a 4/5 spool industrial serger with a shirring arm (my sample is not, so this is an approximation). At the end of each dart is a flat spot because of the physical limitation of the foot and shirring arm getting in the way. Even with my straight stitch machine you can see similar problems. On the left, a pretty little tuck and dimple show up. On the right, the flat spot is more pronounced because the gathers can not start at the end of the dart opening. I also ended up with an open seam where I failed to catch one side. I could easily see these sewing errors occur in an industrial setting.

I suspect there may be more to the pattern than I am thinking.

Stewart Girl's Dress Patent of 1922

From the USPTO comes a patent filing for a girl's dress in 1922. The claim made by Gladys Matson Stewart is for the ornamental design of the dress, which I found rather difficult to see. Perhaps the ribbon belt? I guess the claim depends on the definition of ornamental design and I find her claim rather dubious. Perhaps if she filed the claim on the basis of how the dress is constructed, then perhaps her claim may be more legitimate. The design of the dress is structural and also very intriguing. I would like to sit down with designer and see how she constructed it. The gather details on the upper skirt sides would be especially difficult to sew in an industrial setting. I have tried in the past to come up with an easy way to do it, but haven't yet. The pattern itself is rather easy to create, its the construction that is the challenge.

The difficulty would be in getting the gathers to start right at the end of the slit and have them evenly distributed across the length of it. The next difficulty is overcasting or serging the seam so there are no raw edges while avoiding unsightly tucks. There is a physical/space limitation in inserting the skirt piece under a gather foot on a sewing machine. The detail would almost certainly require some kind of hand manipulation and would be too expensive for modern manufacturing.

The gather detail on the skirt would not be very attractive on an adult woman unless done in a certain way. It would add weight and attention to an area that most women choose not to emphasize. But a girl's dress could certainly get away with it. As a design idea, the detail could show up in lots of different ways and locations on a piece of clothing. The only road block is coming up with an easy mass construction technique.

Careful - This Bib is Patented

I have seen a few children's accessory designers make this bib. I can't say for sure if they have made it exactly, but there is enough similarities that caution should be advised. There are a few children's apparel/accessory products that have been patented. I don't generally like the idea of patenting these kinds of products because they are usually so simple. With a quick search I found over 200 patents on bibs and related items and some of them are extremely simple products. If you do register a patent, you also must be willing to defend it legally. This bib is patented by Nancy Sell with the bib being sold at Wal-Mart.

Other things to consider with patents. They take time and money to prepare. This bib was "invented" in 1993 and the patent filing wasn't completed until 1996. There are some interesting related inventions of a coat and an apron that had similar pockets.

This style of bib is called a "crumb catcher". It has a folded pocket on the bottom that is secured with strategically placed snaps. The bib is made of a vinyl type material on the face and a fuzzy fabric on the back.





Here is a close-up of the folding used to create the pocket.

I haven't decided if this was really worth going through the process of obtaining a patent. It is interesting enough that I traced it off for further study and that is when I noticed the label with patent info. If you do patent a design you must include the patent info on a label. Anyway, if you do make a "crumb catcher" bib, just make sure it doesn't violate this patent.