Enlighten Me On How Patent/trademark Works With Lures And The State Of The "beaver" Bait

[LVLDVL]

So if someone comes out with a certain type of lure, if another company makes a lure inspired by it, and adds on extra appendages or say, add or takes away body ridges, or something of that nature, can the original company go after them for compensation and if they refuse, get a court order for them to stop production of the inspired/copied lure?


I emailed them last year when I could no longer order them from an internet store and Xcite told me that they ran into copyright issues. I'll be honest and say that this lure looks very close to the Reaction Innovation Beaver, which I understand is the true original (correct me if I'm wrong). However, if you click on the "Beaver/Creature/Craw" type baits on any internet store, there are dozens and dozens of copycat beaver baits that are almost identical, especially the body form. These are big nation-wide and local independent companies still producing and selling these. So my question is, why did this particular company get nailed hard?

 

I know a little bit about video game copyright stuff and at this point in time, you could build your own Super Nintendo in your basement and sell it, and Nintendo cannot crack down on you because the copyright time has run its course. So when it comes to fishing lures, what's the deal?

[J Francho]

Copyright is for written, performed, or printed works.

Patent is for a technology, invention or process.

Trademarks are for brand names or product names.

Service marks are for logos.

All are defended by lawyers. Every case of infringement is unique, so you'd have to look at it from a case by case basis. My guess, Xcite found it was cheaper to duck out than fight.

As far as your video game example, only the code and game instructions could have a copyright. Maybe any individual pictures or artwork as well. The system would fall under patents. The NES names and logos are trademark/service marks.

[primetime]

I believe Patents are only good for a certain amount of time, kind of like a new prescription drug, after I think 10 years the generic versions which are less expensive can be released, but I am not certain about all the loopholes and regs,but I don't think a lot of companies look to patent soft bait designs since almost every design is basically either a Grub, Worm, or craw etc...I know some baits will have Patent Pending on labels, and I think it is also expensive to fight copies of patents in court if you are a start up small company. If you go back over archives of lures designed in the past, you will find lures that are similar and obviously inspired the new creation.

 

I also would think that if an OEM and The Engineers or Designers who work in the Factory create a new twist on a soft bait, it probably gets shopped to the larger brands and most smaller companies can't afford to get any protection which is why you see some if not many of smaller companies using straight up clones, re branding, or just changing color and maybe size, types of trebles etc...

 

Since the Megabass Ito Vision jerkbait became popular, almost every company is now adding a similar style, I am curious as to how international patents and trademarks work since you would Think Keitech would have locked down the Swimbaits, and Megabass would have tried to protect the 110, but then again, the keitech swimbaits are simply a ribbed grub with a paddle tail, and a suspending jerkbait has been around for ever so they probably figure its better to focus on marketing which is really the key. The Swing Jig which I think Gene Larew first created with the baffle bug seems to be selling really well and taking off, but I am sure there was something similar at one time which is why all companies are making one.

 

Good question, and thanks for the explanation of the differences between trademarks and Patents etc...I wonder how much Zman or Renosky has spent fighting the chatterbait as I know they went after a few companies and stopped Berkley which is Pure Fishing, but now I see Strike King and other companies flat out making them now so not sure how that went down. I should google that, I am sure Tackle Retail magazine has articles about the chatterbait. I know a bladed swim Jig was made in the 60's and looked just like the chatterbait which always puzzled me......

[J Francho]

It has nothing to do with who invented it first, it's about who holds the patent and has the legal prowess to defend it. Both require a sum of cash.

[WRB]

Patents are forever, the time period you can't infringe is either 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from date of application, whichever is longer. If a patent has been issued the innovation is learned. You can't reinvent the wheel, unless something new is learned about a new wheel design the patent examiner accepts.

Tom