Speed Worms

(Greg*Lumpkin)
What does this mean for someone who wants to start a lure-making
business. If they build up an inventory of lures that look like a brand
name, are they going to get hit with patent infringement lawsuits until
they go under?
=======
There is a thing called "in the public domain", those things are not
patent enforceable. For example, you and I both carve out custom Mallard
duck decoys, they are both identical to a Mallard duck...either one of
us would have a hard time enforcing a patent on them. We could however
copyright a name "Joe's custom duck decoys"....but the words, custom,
duck, and decoys are considered in the public domain, and I could
copyright, J&M custom duck decoys.

So if you built a lure that imitated a "shad", no problem...you can't
patent the "shad" part. But if your's is manufactured in a unique
original manner, or has some original unique design, those
characteristics would be patentable....enforcement is a whole other ball
game though .

I certainly wouldn't be afraid to manufacture and sell lures that looked
like other companies lures....but I wouldn't incorporate any of their
patentable "uniquely original" features, nor use the unique name they
might use. You can't just patent a "frog", a "fish", or a
"worm"...unless of course you developed a unique hybrid (I believe there
are some (what ever that oriental carp is called) fish that are
patented...not sure).

This is just a layman's opinion based on several personal "infringement"
court battles I have had...and won, I might add . Both were copyright
infringement cases, probably much easier to address than patent claims
though.

JK

I just want to build and market fishing lures. Nothing fancy and I'm
not looking to get rich. I'm not even looking to innovate and set the
world on fire, just get paid a little for doing something I like and
that cotributes to a hobby that I enjoy. I will come up with my own
lure names, etc. I have never imagined building something and
claiming it was something else. I wasn't raised that way.

In order to build thse lures, I will, most likely be using components
from places like Jan's, Barlow's, Lurecraft, etc. I was just woried
that if I use their components and build up an inventory of let's say,
spinner baits, am I going to get a visit from a lawyer representing
Booyah?

Greg

There is a thing called "in the public domain", those things are not
patent enforceable. For example, you and I both carve out custom Mallard
duck decoys, they are both identical to a Mallard duck...either one of
us would have a hard time enforcing a patent on them. We could however
copyright a name "Joe's custom duck decoys"....but the words, custom,
duck, and decoys are considered in the public domain, and I could
copyright, J&M custom duck decoys.

So if you built a lure that imitated a "shad", no problem...you can't
patent the "shad" part. But if your's is manufactured in a unique
original manner, or has some original unique design, those
characteristics would be patentable....enforcement is a whole other ball
game though .

I certainly wouldn't be afraid to manufacture and sell lures that looked
like other companies lures....but I wouldn't incorporate any of their
patentable "uniquely original" features, nor use the unique name they
might use. You can't just patent a "frog", a "fish", or a
"worm"...unless of course you developed a unique hybrid (I believe there
are some (what ever that oriental carp is called) fish that are
patented...not sure).

This is just a layman's opinion based on several personal "infringement"
court battles I have had...and won, I might add . Both were copyright
infringement cases, probably much easier to address than patent claims
though.

JK

Thank you. I have zero understanding of patent and trademark law, although
the subject interests me. There are a lot of crankbaits that look very
similar to each other. There are numerous soft jerkbaits that look like a
Super Fluke. It seems hard jerkbaits all look like each other.

At any rate, let's get back to the Senko. Suppose he patented it. What would
be the limit to which an imitation could go?
Would we have a Tiki Stick, Stik-o, Yum Dinger, etc?

"Rodney Long" wrote in message
...
Marty wrote:
Rich, you seem to be the layman patent guy, so I have a couple of
questions:

I'm not Rick, but I know patent law better than most, as I deal with it
daily

1) What about all the lures that are virtually identical to the Senko?

Gary never filed for a patent on the Senko, he didn't think it was worth
one,, it took 6 years of almost zero sales before the Senko took off, then
it was too late to file for a patent.

2) What about a company like Lurecraft, which makes a mold for a Horny
Toad-like lure and even uses the Horny Toad name in its catalog?

They "could be" in some AWESOME trouble, (there is patent case law where
you can't instruct, or provide assistance to anyone for the purpose of
infringement) if Zoom goes after them,, there again they could have
invented the thing for Zoom, and part of the deal is to allow them to sell
the molds to individuals, or they could have even licensed the design from
Zoom, as Zoom knows less than 1/10 of a percent of fishermen mold their
own lures, or Zoom just does not think it's worth the effort to go after
them. Of course Zoom may not even know about Lurecraft and their catalog.

Using the "name" Horny Toad, violates Zoom's Trade Mark, unless they have
permission


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Nutri Shield insect repellent. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

Marty wrote:

At any rate, let's get back to the Senko. Suppose he patented it. What would
be the limit to which an imitation could go?
Would we have a Tiki Stick, Stik-o, Yum Dinger, etc?

It would depend on the patent that was granted



--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Nutri Shield insect repellent. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

"Rodney Long" wrote in message
...
Marty wrote:

At any rate, let's get back to the Senko. Suppose he patented it. What
would be the limit to which an imitation could go?
Would we have a Tiki Stick, Stik-o, Yum Dinger, etc?

It would depend on the patent that was granted



--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Nutri Shield insect repellent. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

I think most worms would be hard to patent. Forget the first salt
impregnated worm, but the manufacturer figured he could not protect it with
a patent, so has a patent on the salt injection application.

Calif Bill wrote:

I think most worms would be hard to patent. Forget the first salt
impregnated worm, but the manufacturer figured he could not protect it with
a patent, so has a patent on the salt injection application.



Larew's Salt Craw. He patented it, never enforced it. Two owners of the
company later, they did start enforcing it. Collected a licensing fee
from everyone using salt, or stopped them. That's why the zoom and other
packs say "mfg under patent ###" on them. The patent expired several
years ago.

The patent wasn't on the means of injecting it, but on the concept of
adding it in the first place. Here's a link to the patent.

http://shrunklink.com/?ttn