Tony glover - Copy right infringement?

[blahblah01]

It would only be a problem if he was badging them as Bourroughs and Watts or whatever. Almost everything you buy these days is a replica of something, and modern hoover you buy for instance, will basically be a replica of a Dyson.

Except Hoover is a brand name :wink:

[jonny66]

vacum cleaner

[blahblah01]

vacum cleaner

But kinda the point of the thread? Buying an Electrolux dyson hoover... ie a bagless vacuum cleaner? (Note the lack of capitals :wink

[jonny66]

Hoover just became the way of saying it in Britain, none of them are sold as hoovers (unless they are made by Hoover), it's just what we call them. I don't see your point?

[blahblah01]

That people would describe their Electrolux as a dyson and a hoover.

If someone make\sells a replica it is fine - but selling it as a "real" one is fake, but surely the Maker should make it obvious to someone who knows?

I watched a now released Art Forgerr on some TV Prog* who was interesting on this stuff, unsurprisingly

*it may have been something about trying to find out if a painting was genuine.....

[DeanH]

That people would describe their Electrolux as a dyson and a hoover.

If someone make\sells a replica it is fine - but selling it as a "real" one is fake, but surely the Maker should make it obvious to someone who knows?

I watched a now released Art Forgerr on some TV Prog* who was interesting on this stuff, unsurprisingly

*it may have been something about trying to find out if a painting was genuine.....

* Fake or Fortune, BBC, ?

[blahblah01]

Fiona Bruce was running it, I think.

I only hopped to it and stayed as nowt else piqued my 2 functioning brain cells.

[chunkis]

ok so I did a bit of research online, and it turns out that coping somebody elses product design and then making a reproduction of it is against the law.

Tony makes cues that are identical in every way to the original. That's copyright infringement. The cues also have the borough and watts trademark on the bottom of each cue, ie the badge. The badge is a trademark of borough and watts because it holds the name and is protected by trademark law. So he breaks two separate laws.

However, the company stopped doing business in 1967, with most of the property sold off to property developers and the table refurbishment side of the business sold to Riley, but after 20 years of lying dormant the business was resurrected in the mid 80s and still continues to do business under the name borough and watts today, however one could argue that its not the same company that was in business prior to 1967, because none of the same people who were apart of the business in 1967 are around today, in fact am pretty sure it`s a different company, doing completely different things altogether, although it is still in the snooker table business.

Now I did a bit of research online and I found out that any cue made before 1947 will have lost its patient providing the maker has also passed away in the same year (1947) or earlier, because there is a 70 year patient on anything crafted, ie snooker cues.

This would suggest to me that the patient on borough and watts cues that tony makes is open for anybody to reproduce, because cues like the borough and watts mascot cue were produced for the first time in 1930 and some of the "burwat champions" and "ye olde ash cues" even earlier, so as long as tony or anybody else makes cues that meets the above criteria, ie making cues that are made before 1947 he should be alright?

Am I making sense?

[jonny66]

I'm sure Tony will be glad you've got this information, and posted it on a public internet forum

[blahblah01]

ok so I did a bit of research online, and it turns out that coping somebody elses product design and then making a reproduction of it is against the law.

Tony makes cues that are identical in every way to the original. That's copyright infringement. The cues also have the borough and watts trademark on the bottom of each cue, ie the badge. The badge is a trademark of borough and watts because it holds the name and is protected by trademark law. So he breaks two separate laws.

However, the company stopped doing business in 1967, with most of the property sold off to property developers and the table refurbishment side of the business sold to Riley, but after 20 years of lying dormant the business was resurrected in the mid 80s and still continues to do business under the name borough and watts today, however one could argue that its not the same company that was in business prior to 1967, because none of the same people who were apart of the business in 1967 are around today, in fact am pretty sure it`s a different company, doing completely different things altogether, although it is still in the snooker table business.

Now I did a bit of research online and I found out that any cue made before 1947 will have lost its patient providing the maker has also passed away in the same year (1947) or earlier, because there is a 70 year patient on anything crafted, ie snooker cues.

This would suggest to me that the patient on borough and watts cues that tony makes is open for anybody to reproduce, because cues like the borough and watts mascot cue were produced for the first time in 1930 and some of the "burwat champions" and "ye olde ash cues" even earlier, so as long as tony or anybody else makes cues that meets the above criteria, ie making cues that are made before 1947 he should be alright?

Am I making sense?

Not really, unless I go with a brilliant typo (re patient for patent), but the dying bit that keeps my head on patients

[Ninja.cues]

That people would describe their Electrolux as a dyson and a hoover.

If someone make\sells a replica it is fine - but selling it as a "real" one is fake, but surely the Maker should make it obvious to someone who knows?

I watched a now released Art Forgerr on some TV Prog* who was interesting on this stuff, unsurprisingly

*it may have been something about trying to find out if a painting was genuine.....

Electrolux did copy Dyson a few year's ago and Dyson took them to court and won... Just saying..

[blahblah01]

Electrolux did copy Dyson a few year's ago and Dyson took them to court and won... Just saying..

Some more characters.....

[Madbox]

I think this would be the case if the original designs of the cues were still in production by the original company,
but I think I am right even the Burwat Champion is a copy of an original design from another manufacturer.
But then again, what about the original Facsimile cues that were produced by certain older manufacturers.

How many cues are out there with an ash shaft, ebony butt with a thick coloured splice then an exotic wood splice on the front facet, but with a different manufacturers badge on them.
Take the Parris traditional, description is the same, appearance is different, with a different butt badge, thats because it is always made slightly differently by each manufacturer.
Too many anomalies that would make them different from each other, even from one manufacturer, that is what makes each ones different.

I think it would be difficult to implement as they are are not replicas, that are identical in every detail, as the grain would be different the,
as well the size of the cue, the size of the butt, the length of the splices, the colour of the ebony. And Tony does specify that they are replicas, and can only be sold as replicas.

[golferson123]

I think this would be the case if the original designs of the cues were still in production by the original company,
but I think I am right even the Burwat Champion is a copy of an original design from another manufacturer.
But then again, what about the original Facsimile cues that were produced by certain older manufacturers.

How many cues are out there with an ash shaft, ebony butt with a thick coloured splice then an exotic wood splice on the front facet, but with a different manufacturers badge on them.
Take the Parris traditional, description is the same, appearance is different, with a different butt badge, thats because it is always made slightly differently by each manufacturer.
Too many anomalies that would make them different from each other, even from one manufacturer, that is what makes each ones different.

I think it would be difficult to implement as they are are not replicas, that are identical in every detail, as the grain would be different the,
as well the size of the cue, the size of the butt, the length of the splices, the colour of the ebony. And Tony does specify that they are replicas, and can only be sold as replicas.

and of course the fact that replicas are made with north american ash!

[Byrom]

-I'am not happy these people imitating me ...waking replicas - its not right.