Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson sues rival Vax over vacuum cleaner design
Dyson has launched legal action against rival manufacturer Vax, claiming the design of its Mach Zen vacuum cleaner is an infringement of the registered design of its first "bagless" Dyson cylinder vacuum, launched 15 years ago.

The company's founder and inventor James Dyson – who revolutionised the domestic appliance market with the product – said the Chinese-owned rival had "flagrantly copied" Dyson's iconic design and pledged to set a precedent on behalf of all designers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/27/dyson-sues-vax

M00seUK wrote:

To my knowledge as a non-legal type, there is a principle of law that says you can't pick and choose the party for lawsuit if more than one violates the law.  If you go against one offender, you have to go against all of them.  That would muck up the dyson lawsuit.  Vax can cite same/similar vacuum designs and say Vax form copies them as well.  Pretty easy to do for vacuum makers.  This puts the burden of proof on dyson to show that the Vax design IS THE ONLY design that violates the law and ALL OTHERS do not.  Hence, the reason dyson sues only Vax and not any others.  Not a good legal position for dyson to prevail.  The application of the law IMHO would require that dyson sue all other vacuum parties, even if just remotely same/similar designs to its own [or at least one other to be legally tenable], to successively prevail against the legal target of the suit: Vax.  Again, if dyson chooses one other maker beside Vax, Vax can undoubtedly point to another maker and say it copies it as well.  See where this is going?  Complicated but such is the law.  The intent IMHO is to ensure frivolous and capricious lawsuits do not muck up the legal system especially in cases of consumer products that are generic in form and function such as vacuums.  If dyson can proof that by copying its design, the Vax actually works and sells better, it might have a shot.  But, sales/performance of vacuums, more so than other products, are not predicated on design but actual operations and prices.

Carmine D.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that a someone made a direct copy of a 15 year old Kirby except that it had a bagless dual cyclone assembly instead of a bag - would Kirby stand for it? 

Glad to see that Vax have replied:-

Vax says in a statement, ‘Vax’s solicitors have analysed the case and advised Vax that Vax has a good case and does not infringe Dyson’s rights. Vax will be vigorously defending the case and is confident of victory. Vax is surprised to be accused of flagrant copying by Dyson. Although copying is technically not a relevant legal issue in the court action Dyson has launched, the fact is that Vax did not copy Dyson. The Vax product was independently designed by British designers at its headquarters in Droitwich Spa UK. Vax has no need to copy anyone.’

http://www.designweek.co.uk/dyson-takes-legal-action-over-vacuum-cleaner-design/3009308.article

...so trying to regain their position somewhat. Looking at the product, It's hard to imagine the design wasn't inspired by Dyson previous. With both sides adament, it look like the legal system will have to decide if Vax has designed up to or strayed over the acceptable line.

M00seUK wrote:

Interestingly, this article unlike the previous, claims the dyson model launched in 1995 rather than 1996, making the 15 years [let alone the 10 years after marketing the product] register almost a moot legal issue.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

The issue for KIRBY is: Does the clone pretend to be a Kirby by copying?  In that case, I think Kirby would have a case.  If the clone clearly says its brand name and there is no intent real or implied to gain off the Kirby name, the competitor is exercising free enterprise in the marketplace.  Royal Powercast comes to mind recently.  Very similar in form and function to Kirby but Kirby was silent on the matter.  Tho, Royal would probably assert if Kirby protested, that Kirby emulated the Royal upright in the early 30's and Royal never protested. 

Garry vacuum comes to mind too.  Looks like an ORECK for all intents and purposes.  But clearly no intent by Garry to pawn itself off as an ORECK.  That's the crux of the legal matter IMHO if there are no other laws in effect, as is the dyson case with the design law.  But, the more I read, the more it appears that there are no facts and circumstances of the Vax instance that violate the dyson register law [like time period].  Under the law, dyson's design period would have expired in 2005.  As you say, lawyers should have a field day.

Carmine D.

Moose - it has nothing to do with if the Vax cleaner is better on performance - the fact that it looks like a Dyson and states similar suction/Dyson like promises, Dyson have every right to sue Vax and Dyson may well win. This isn't the first time Dyson have sued vacuum cleaner companies because of this and it won't be the last.

Take the Vax Mach Zen, remove its branding transfers, ask a cross-section of people who makes the cleaner and I'd reckon that a majority would say Dyson. With the branding transfers in place, few would buy it by mistake, thinking it was a Dyson.

The issue is that by copying the Dyson style, a purchaser might give greater emotional kudos to the competing brand, as it looks near enough identical - hence the lack of an incentive to have a wholly original design style and why a product would get some degree of protection by being registered. The Zen isn't an identical copy, but it's certainly very close to the mark.

While victory for Dyson can't by any means be assured, it would certainly seem to be relatively low risk for Dyson. If they succeed, it would disrupt the sales and reputation for the Vax brand, while boosting their own (any compensation would again go to a worthy engineering cause, to get several times the value in PR exposure). If Dyson lose the case, they'd be liable for the legal fees, but they'd still be able to milk some publicity - it's small change for the opportunity.

Regarding the Perfect vacuum.   The canister shell is that of an old Electrolux.  It has an upgraded motor, cloth bags, and other changes.  Does Electrolux get royalties from this design?

what about Cratsman & Ridgid shop vacs?  I think Ridgid should make their own design & not steal from Craftsman!

M00seUK wrote:

M00seUK:

Have to vehemently disagree with this perspective.  The reasons you state should not be bases for legal actions of one company against another in the same industry.  You may want to use these arguments orally with your legal opponents to prevent lawsuits.  However, arguing the veracity of a legal suit solely on these bases rather than written principles of law is IMHO frivolous and capricious.  Courts and people see through these whimsical motives.

Carmine D.