Folks,

In an earlier colum Ladyfisher posted her view on the claim by Fuji to the intelectual ownership and property claims to the design and manufacture of bridge type rod guides, claiming trademark infringement by other guide manufacturers.

You can find her column here:
[url=http://www.flyanglersonline.com/ldy/ldy071403.html:db43d]http://www.flyanglersonline.com/ldy/ldy071403.html[/url:db43d]

I noticed that Pacific Bay has challenged Fuji on their position, and the courts have now passed a ruling on the legal status of the Fuji claim.

I have my own opinion on the subject of trademarks being used to extend the life of a patent, but am keen to hear yours


The following is from the Sporting Goods Business web site (http://www.sportinggoodsbusiness.com), 4 May 2005:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Pacific Bay Wins Trademark Case Over Fuji

A judge has ruled in Pacific Bay International's favor over Fuji's trademark complaint vs Pacific Bay, including trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and unfair competition claims. He has also ordered cancellation by the US Patent & Trademark Office of three Fuji trademark registrations it asserted vs Pacific Bay, a fishing rod component manufacturer.

The core issue involved common guide leg and frame designs used among major guide manufacturers throughout the world over the past two decades. Trial testimony covered guide dynamics comparisons of curved vs straight leg designs and their characteristics as well as the functionality, durability, manufacturing process, and costs as well as the expired utility patents Fuji had relating to these leg designs.

This ruling is a major victory for all rod builders, Pac Bay declared. Now they will be able to use products manufactured by a variety of vendors without the concern of a potential lawsuit or an unforeseen string of royalty payments.

The bottom line for Pac Bay is the fact that all guides they supply are guides that can be purchased without fear of being penalized improperly with licensing provisions by another guide manufacturer. For more than years, Pac Bay has provided extensive evidence in court demonstrating the fact that particular fishing rod guide designs have been in use by the industry at large for decades, that specific designs commonly used in the manufacturing of fishing rod guides are not unique, and that a manufacturer can not trademark an expired patent on material that is now in the public domain.

The court rejected Fuji's efforts to extend the exclusive rights they received with their utility patent after they expired and to obtain perpetual exclusive use of their design. Through Pac Bay's extensive investment in this legal battle, a message is being sent by the company to the industry stating that it is improper and unfair to use the trademark process as a replacement for an expired patent of a product design and manufacturing process.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cheers,
Hans W


------------------
=== You have a friend in Low Places ===
http://www.danica.com/flytier