Hello Mr. St John Goldfinger,
I've been reading this thread since it's inception July 15th, I am quite fascinated by your lack of expressed concern regarding what looks by many to be, at the very least, a highly questionable coincidence. Although I won't suggest you intentionally copied another's design, the similarities between the two beads are highly suspect. In an attempt to resolve this controversy, let's take a look at some relevant facts.
>In the OP (opening post) you state "I just designed and made a tritium zip pull". It contains four tritium cells, 2mmx10mm each".
>In post #9 you state, "Time wise it took about a week or two on and off to design and develop the idea then make the prototype".
>In post #15, only three days after introduction of the prototype, you state "ok, I have made some design changes! I will put up some pictures here to show you.
I would like to take pre-orders if that is possible. It will be a 3 trit, titanium material, bead blast finish zip pull coming in at around 30 euros - 5 euro discount for pre-orders. anodising will also be possible (standard colours). Trits will be secured in place and protected with a clear potting compound (norland or similar). Shipping is from europe to anywhere".
>In post #20, you state, "
I think this will be the final design (youtube animation) :
http://youtu.be/k4UlwJQY42o I have spent quite a bit of time on this and have all the manufacturing processes in place ready to go".
Taking pre-orders now for an approx 3/4 week delivery time.
> In post #58, you state, "many thanks for your reply. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and comments even if mine differ. My thoughts disagree based on intellectual property law, not my personal opinion. My 'zip pull' is my own design,
I put up the design for comment and feedback, not marketing and sale. I am not qualified to give feedback about i.p (intellectual property law) so I don't give it...
You may want to review what you wrote in post #15.
> In post #20, you stated, "The
"final design" with a link to a YouTube animation of the bead. I can't help being amazed by this substantial transformation from the prototype to this "final design". My amazement extends further to the controversial likeness to Toby's design.
> In post #22, you provide a picture of
"the tritium bead bomb".
> The name of Toby's design, introduced in December, 2011 is the
"Titanium-Bead-Bomb (The Tritiumbead).
> You live in Muenster, Germany.
> Toby lives in Berlin, Germany.
> Toby's design was posted on YouTube for the world to see On December 13, 2011.
> Toby posted his design for sale on the CPF Marketplace with two production runs. The first beginning 12/03/2011, with all units being sold by March, 2012, and the second commencing 4/01/2012 until all units sold in less than three weeks.
> In post #20 of Toby's first run sales thread
here, Toby states, "
Design is already patented". What he was attempting to describe is that he has essentially the German equivalent of a "
design patent" for his Titanium-Bead-Bomb, known as the "Geschmackmuster". The Geschmackmuster refers to a
registered community design, which provides protection from intellectual property theft for up to 25 years.
To legally circumvent Toby's design, you would have to meet the EU's standard for a new "Design". Therefore, for your design not to be considered a violation, it would have to meet the standards for "Novel", as well as "Individual Character" as defined by law, and furthermore judged as such by the "informed user". I would argue that the majority of the CPF members who have posted on this thread, have clearly expressed that your design would not meet the aforementioned standards.
However, I would venture that many here would support "nbp's" concisely stated sentiment in post #63 above. As I made clear in the beginning, I will not suggest you intentionally copied Toby's design, as others have echoed. But if you persist down this path, you will have to accept the consequences which may include not being able to garner support for your position, or your zipper bead.
Those are some of the facts that firmly establish Toby's design was first out of the gate with a novel design of individual character, which is at the very least protected by the EU's community design laws for intellectual property.
These same facts also quite convincingly suggest that your "final design" used proprietary elements of Toby's design. These elements, in particular the "sidepipes", are critical to the differentiation of Toby's design, which Toby has clearly stated is protected under German and EU law with his Geschmackmuster.
Again, I won't suggest you intentionally copied another's design, but I won't suggest you didn't. However, I would suggest you rethink your stance on the matter. You have better options, the most prudent of which may be to concede the similarities between your design and Toby's. Consistent with the claim you made in post #56, "I have acted perfectly honorably", you should once again act honorably and simply scratch the design you choose to finalize for pre-orders, and use the considerable resources at your disposal. After all, as you stated in post #9, "
Well my job is as a design and production engineer and this is what I do all the time. I also love doing it so that is a big advantage for me".
There is no point in exacerbating this controversy. Conflicts in design happen all the time, but then when designers come to realize they have inadvertently created a substantially similar design to a previously established one, as a matter of course and honor, it is common practice to concede these facts and move on.
There is a market here for anyone with a novel design, but it must be for something that does not incorporate any of Toby's protected design elements, such that "informed users" won't consider a copy. Use that big advantage you have declared to create a whole new and exciting design.
In fact, I'm really curious why you didn't go with the prototype you showed us in the OP? As a zipper pull, the fact that the fours sides were slightly concave certainly made sense in terms of grip. And although the effectiveness of the tritium vials you used in the prototype would probably not be of much value as markers in my opinion, they are appealing to many here in this forum as a preferred design feature.
You might want to reconsider putting the prototype back up for consideration. But this time wait until you have sufficient feedback from members before you decide anything further.
Here's hoping you decide on a do-over!
All the best,
John Calvert
