Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44,000

AP Wire article

"STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Swedish home furnishings retailer Ikea has been ordered to pay 300,000 kronor ($44,000) in damages to American company Mag Instrument Inc. for trademark infringement.

The fine was announced Monday after the Helsingborg District Court ruled that a flashlight sold in Ikea stores was too similar to the Mini Maglite...."

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/poke2.gif

That's all I'm going to say.

Notice the advertisers at the bottom of the link?

Don't mess with Mag!!

Bill

Good! I realize the idea that a company's product, which that company has sunk significant $$ into for development, marketing and facilities--should not be stolen by copiers is not a concept given much respect on the forum. It is theft, whether or not it is acknowledged. I say MORE POWER to Mag, and others like them that have the testosterone to go after the thieves. If there are any contrary opinions based upon facts and logic, I'd be really interested to hear what they are.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As much as I don't like Mag's aggressive litigation, IKEA isn't hurting for money and I suppose it was a good lesson on American business. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
sniper said:
Good! I realize the idea that a company's product, which that company has sunk significant $$ into for development, marketing and facilities--should not be stolen by copiers is not a concept given much respect on the forum. It is theft, whether or not it is acknowledged. I say MORE POWER to Mag, and others like them that have the testosterone to go after the thieves. If there are any contrary opinions based upon facts and logic, I'd be really interested to hear what they are.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you in the case of a genuine intellectual property situation.

But do you know what Mag considers as its trademarks?

I won't go into any details because for all I know I may get certain companies into further trouble by even mentioning the various situations I have knowlege of. Sound paranoid? It's not. Maglite is . . . the-flashlight-company-which-must-not-be-named. As Bill said, "Don't mess with Mag", and for that matter, don't give them any reason to mess with you.

For a case of this type, $44,000 is chump change.

Mag had to have spent more than this just to pursue the action to completion.

In other words, they are almost certainly out some money here.

The only people who won were the lawyers.


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/goodjob.gif

[ QUOTE ]
newo said:
For a case of this type, $44,000 is chump change.

Mag had to have spent more than this just to pursue the action to completion.

In other words, they are almost certainly out some money here.

The only people who won were the lawyers.


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/goodjob.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And Ikea probably had to spend just as much on their legal defense. As you say, only the lawyers made out.

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

Maglica started making flashlights of his own design in a garage, not unlike some who frequent this forum.

I don't see the logic in complaints I have read on CPF about how bad it is for Mag to defend its product. It is like people feel ripping off a sucessful company os ok. Little guys can do no wrong; big guys can do no right.

Scott

lol, read the article and youll see, the damages awarded were $44,000, but the court costs they are ordered to pay are $585,000 !!

yup, the lawyers did fine.

I agree on the questionable nature of Mag's more recent legal proceedings. However, if you look at the original lights that caused them to hire such a legal department in the first place they were indeed blatant rip-offs of their products and deserved to be sued over it. I'm thinking of the pictures people have posted here of early brinkman lights. For all I know this little light really was a Mag rip-off in the closest possible way.

I really want to see the light from Ikea that caused it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Anybody got one?

More recently their claiming to own the cylinder and claiming that writing your manufacturer name around the bezel of the light was an idea that is trademarkable or copyrightable and owned by them I think will not hold up in court if they are even unfortunate enough to challenge someone who can afford to actually take them to court rather than just be driven out of business before they get there... but then IANAL, so what do I know?

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

Perhaps they can use that money to release an LED solitaire? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif BTW, does someone have a link to see this flashlight?

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

"More recently their claiming to own the cylinder and claiming that writing your manufacturer name around the bezel of the light . . ."

Anyone have specifics on that? Sorry, it could be true, but it sounds like a rumor to me.

Scott

The court costs figure just proves my point.

Mag won a Pyrrhic victory. They spent over a half million to try and win 80 or 90k, and at best end up getting half of that figure. And they could lose part, or all, of the costs figure on appeal. This represents money they have already spent. In the meatime they are out a half mill, upon which they are losing interest, are incurring ongoing opportunity costs, and so on.

It looks to me as though Mag tried to roll over Ikea, and Ikea's counsel ate their lunch for them, and expensed them to death in the process.

This case is a monument to stupidity. There is an old expression in certain circles, and that is that a bad settlement is preferable to a good lawsuit. This case is a textbook example of why that is so. Litigation is a very poor, and yet costly, substitute for sound business judgment.

I have no idea what the merits of this particular case were; which corporation was right, and which was wrong. And from my perspective, it doesn't really matter. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps Mag and Ikea deserve each other.

But one fact remains. The only people who won here were the lawyers. It was ever thus. And if you don't believe that, track down and read one of Charles ****ens' lesser known novels - "Bleak House".

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

"Litigation is a very poor, and yet costly, substitute for sound business judgment. . . ."

What would you have done, newo?

Scott

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

It certainly did cost MagLite some money to take this to court, but since it was in Sweden, IKEA has to pay for MagLites lawyers.

[ QUOTE ]
newo said:
The court costs figure just proves my point.

Mag won a Pyrrhic victory. They spent over a half million to try and win 80 or 90k, and at best end up getting half of that figure. And they could lose part, or all, of the costs figure on appeal. This represents money they have already spent. In the meatime they are out a half mill, upon which they are losing interest, are incurring ongoing opportunity costs, and so on.

It looks to me as though Mag tried to roll over Ikea, and Ikea's counsel ate their lunch for them, and expensed them to death in the process.

This case is a monument to stupidity. There is an old expression in certain circles, and that is that a bad settlement is preferable to a good lawsuit. This case is a textbook example of why that is so. Litigation is a very poor, and yet costly, substitute for sound business judgment.

I have no idea what the merits of this particular case were; which corporation was right, and which was wrong. And from my perspective, it doesn't really matter. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps Mag and Ikea deserve each other.

But one fact remains. The only people who won here were the lawyers. It was ever thus. And if you don't believe that, track down and read one of Charles ****ens' lesser known novels - "Bleak House".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone is missing the point. The lawyers didn't win, Maglite won.Mag does not care how much money they spend on lawyers. As far as they are concerned they are buying time and protecting marketshare.What they are getting for all the dollars spent on litigation is spreading a blanket of fear among Anyone who makes flashlights. This keeps some companies from entering the market and the ones who do had better be extra careful introducing any new products. This could and I predict will go on for years. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

Not for or against: just some observations:

A) Mag no doubt has lawyers on staff full time, so "the lawyers made out" part is iffy. They get paid an annual salary to hunt and destroy such infringements.
B) Mag has been posting a healthy bottom line doing what it's been doing, so they know what is good for their own financial well-being better than we.
C) Is Mag outlandish for patenting the cylinder or head writing, or is it the US patent office for allowing such? Why shouldn't Mag seek such patents if they are possible? If they didn't, someone else inevitably would have. Once obtained, they are legal. Seems many posts I've read on this kind of thing are really complaints against the patent process. I don't know lots about it.
D) Winning 50 grand isn't necessarily the point. It could also be to make other would-be thieves, American and not, with legit businesses, think twice about planning to knockoff Maglites. This is probably why Mag seeks publicity about such things.
E) Whether a cutting edge product or yesterday's news, Mag has every right to protect lawfully obtained patents.

If terribly upset or suffering excess righteous indignation, I suggest you vote with your dollars, people, and don't buy Maglites. That's free enterprise and the American Way. It's up to a court to decide if infringement has occurred. If they do, who are we to naysay? Unless you want to start in on the court system, too...

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

I think much of what Mag claims is thier property actually was done by Eveready from 1911-1940.

I wonder if anyone will go after Mag is they try to make an Led light?

Re: Ikea infringes trademark, to pay Mag Inst. $44

[ QUOTE ]
beezaur said:
What would you have done, newo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Settled, if possible. Failing that, gone into arbitration. Only failing that, proceeded with litigation.

[ QUOTE ]
DimBeam said:
I think everyone is missing the point. The lawyers didn't win, Maglite won.Mag does not care how much money they spend on lawyers. As far as they are concerned they are buying time and protecting marketshare.What they are getting for all the dollars spent on litigation is spreading a blanket of fear among Anyone who makes flashlights. This keeps some companies from entering the market and the ones who do had better be extra careful introducing any new products. This could and I predict will go on for years. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting perspective. The lawyers won because win or lose, they get paid. This is not the type of case typically taken on contingency, and, for that matter I do not know if contingency fees are lawful in Sweden.

Mag has, in my personal opinion, a very stale product line. They make a nice body which houses a third rate flashlight. If they have invested anything in trying to refresh their line, or improve it, or advance the state of the art, I haven't seen it. I just don't see turning out the same stuff year after year, and on occasion using a different color, as product refreshment.

Some might argue that flashlights are by their very nature low tech, so what is there to refresh? Most of the people who hang out at this site would disagree with that. But, it appears that Mag takes the view that it is not worth improving.

They do appear to be pursuing an approach of litigation instead of innovation, as DimBeam suggests. This is not a point that I have missed. And it might even work in the short term, possibly the intermediate term. But sooner or later they will miscalculate and lose, or they will take on someone with much deeper pockets themselves or go under because this is actually a pretty risky approach in terms of cash-flow. And it is incredible waste of a company's resources.