#21  
Old 11-06-2018, 12:42 PM
philstine philstine is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Courses Played: 20
Posts: 221
Niced 183 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherDave View Post
I don't think so, a Distroyer would be a parody of a Destroyer so legally fair game.
Au contraire, a competing trade name or marque that “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” with regard to the original trademark does not qualify as parody under trademark law when the product in question competes directly with the earlier, trademarked product. See Trademark Law, Trademark Anti-Dilution Act of 1995, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006
Sponsored Links

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-06-2018, 01:37 PM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24
Courses Played: 145
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 8,494
Niced 1,147 Times in 461 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philstine View Post
Au contraire, a competing trade name or marque that “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” with regard to the original trademark does not qualify as parody under trademark law when the product in question competes directly with the earlier, trademarked product. See Trademark Law, Trademark Anti-Dilution Act of 1995, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006
It's kinda a moot point because McBeth is going to be with Discraft and they are an actual business. Releasing a "Distroyer" disc would only happen if McBeth had signed with Quest AT.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-06-2018, 02:02 PM
jakebake91 jakebake91 is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: West Central Wisconsin
Years Playing: 2.5
Courses Played: 6
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 430
Niced 264 Times in 135 Posts
Default

Is distroyer that much different from destroyer than wraith is to wrath? I understand that one has an added letter and one a changed letter but really....differences???

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-06-2018, 02:20 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21
Courses Played: 144
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 6,771
Niced 2,095 Times in 895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakebake91 View Post
Is distroyer that much different from destroyer than wraith is to wrath? I understand that one has an added letter and one a changed letter but really....differences???
Pronunciation, for one. For another, "Distroyer" isn't a real word, so the intent of using that for a disc designed to be similar to a Destroyer seems pretty transparently an attempt to confuse or deceive consumers.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-06-2018, 07:27 PM
ChefKoolaid ChefKoolaid is online now
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Courses Played: 30
Posts: 100
Niced 43 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aim For The Chains View Post
Read.
I did. That patent applies to 27 specific versions of 'flying disc' not all flying discs. E.g:

7. The disc of claim 6 wherein the specific gravity of the ring with the weighting product is between 1.0 and 2.5, and the specific gravity of the hub is between 0.95 and 1.18.

The patent only applies to these 27 specific disc innovations. Not a blanket patent for all flying discs.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-06-2018, 09:23 PM
mizunodave mizunodave is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 122
Niced 77 Times in 28 Posts
Default

When I made my first failed attempt at playing disc golf as far as I knew there was only two manufacturers, Innova and Discraft. I came back a few years later and there were a dozen manufacturers. Someone told me it was because a patent expired that allowed these new people to enter the market.

Was that true?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:05 PM
Aim For The Chains's Avatar
Aim For The Chains Aim For The Chains is offline
FROLF OFF!
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MINNESOTA
Years Playing: 10.6
Courses Played: 134
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 16,993
Niced 1,015 Times in 687 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChefKoolaid View Post
I did. That patent applies to 27 specific versions of 'flying disc' not all flying discs. E.g:

7. The disc of claim 6 wherein the specific gravity of the ring with the weighting product is between 1.0 and 2.5, and the specific gravity of the hub is between 0.95 and 1.18.

The patent only applies to these 27 specific disc innovations. Not a blanket patent for all flying discs.
Right. Which MVP was trying to cover. What are you arguing?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-06-2018, 10:26 PM
tbird888's Avatar
tbird888 tbird888 is offline
Salient Disc Test Team
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blue Ash, OH
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 214
Throwing Style: LHFH
Posts: 15,942
Niced 980 Times in 503 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizunodave View Post
When I made my first failed attempt at playing disc golf as far as I knew there was only two manufacturers, Innova and Discraft. I came back a few years later and there were a dozen manufacturers. Someone told me it was because a patent expired that allowed these new people to enter the market.

Was that true?
It certainly helps not having to pay Innova a fee for every disc you make. Notice all the new Thumbtrac putters that have recently been released by competitors? Guess what patent expired.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-06-2018, 11:22 PM
ChefKoolaid ChefKoolaid is online now
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Courses Played: 30
Posts: 100
Niced 43 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aim For The Chains View Post
Right. Which MVP was trying to cover. What are you arguing?
Perhaps nothing. I may have just misunderstood your original post.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #30  
Old 11-07-2018, 09:05 AM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21
Courses Played: 144
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 6,771
Niced 2,095 Times in 895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizunodave View Post
When I made my first failed attempt at playing disc golf as far as I knew there was only two manufacturers, Innova and Discraft. I came back a few years later and there were a dozen manufacturers. Someone told me it was because a patent expired that allowed these new people to enter the market.

Was that true?
100% true. Innova held patent #4568297. To make a golf disc while they held that patent, it required licensing and paying a royalty to Innova. If you look at any Discraft or Lightning or Gateway disc produced prior to 2004, it says "Licensed under U.S. patent no. 4568297". Once the patent expired (late 2003), manufacturers no longer needed permission nor did they need to pay Innova to make golf discs, and that opened the door for a bunch of new companies to start producing.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Those Wacky Disc Golf Patents!!!! zenbot General Disc Golf Chat 39 10-20-2016 08:09 PM
Basket Patents rhatton1 General Disc Golf Chat 8 10-27-2015 09:37 AM
Disc Design Patents Meulen Discs 7 01-09-2013 11:08 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.