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

Interesting, copied a 15 year old cann vacuum.  Any thoughts on the court's ruling/outcome?

Carmine D.

Will be interesting to see the results.   Chinese companies are notorious for stealing intellectual property. 

We were fools to establish free trade with China, since they don't play by any rules. 

CarmineD wrote:

It's certainly got a number of features that are similar to Dyson in terms of ornamental design. I'd say Dyson have a reasonable case. Notice how James Dyson is only too happy to inform the (majority) of people who aren't already aware these (best UK selling by unit sales) Vax products are from a Chinese competitor... one that copies their registered design. I suspect getting that message out there is more important than getting TTI tool up a re-designed mold for this model. A cunning PR move - but to be fair, I'd do the same in his position.

M00seUK:

What are the legal ramifications in the UK of "registered" versus "patented?"  And the time lines for enforcement?

Carmine D. 

Severus wrote:

M00seUK/SEVERUS:

I suspect VAX will argue that dyson is suing TTI/VAX because its cann is a better seller than dyson's.  While asserting that other brands and models over the years copied the dyson design too and were not sued.  Again pointing to the fact that VAX is a better seller and hence the dyson lawsuit.  I recall MOLE's prophetic words that all the bagged canns are morphing into the same look.  Seems bagless canns too. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
This is taken from the trademarks section on ipo.gov.uk:-

Design right lasts either 10 years after the first marketing of products that use the design or 15 years after creation of the design, whichever is earlier. For the first 5 years you can stop anyone from copying the design. For the rest of the time the design is subject to a License of right. This means that anyone is entitled to a licence to make and sell products copying the design.

The DC02 was marketed (off the top of my head) in / around 1996. Without the exact details I'm not sure how it would apply to the Dyson case. Maybe they're using a later design, like the DC05.

CarmineD wrote:
For all that's come before it, this model does seem to be the closest yet to a direct copy.  I'm trying to think how effectively TTI could spin this - something like "Okay, our design might be fairly similar, but Dyson are only doing this damage our brand image" wouldn't get much symphony. Is this model reviewed as being any better value than the Dyson? (I truely don't know, either way). For price comparison, at Argos, The Vax Zen is listed at 179 GBP, the Dyson DC19 is 169 GBP along with a promo at the moment where you get a 50 GBP Argos gift voucher on Dyson vac purchases.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Thanks for the response and info.  UK article you cited says 15 year old dyson model.  So, apparently it's a 1996 dyson cann.  If marketed, as you say, then the time period is reduced to 10 years [about 2006] giving Vax a green light to go forward.  The law says whatever happens earliest which appears to give the benefit of the doubt to the market place and makers [Vax] not the design/register holder [dyson].

Carmine D.

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.

The thing is though, largely until Dyson came along, other brands just let other brands get on with it. If a company copied a design from someone else where vacs were concerned, some would take it as a compliment rather than be against it. Dyson have been infamous with taking many companies to court over suction claims and lots of other issues, trying to reinforce that Dyson are number one for vacuums and suctions. This bullying tactic hasn't gone unnoticed - Hoover were forever being taken to court by Dyson for copying their Vortex/associated names with Cyclones.

vacmanuk wrote:

True.  Like the boy who always cried wolf.  When the wolf finally comes, no one believes him.  Credibility is shattered.

Carmine D.

vacmanuk wrote:

By the way, does anybody know what Hoover's record was as far as lawsuits were concerned?  There were lot's of "variations"  on the beater bar alone by other manufacturers.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
What's the issue? I'm stating a likely, if cynical, view for all this. I don't represent or speak for anyone. Yes, a lawsuit shouldn't be brought for these reasons, but doesn't mean it isn't

vacmanuk wrote:
VacmanUK,

I guess putting locks on the door to your home is out of the question, and if a robber or opportunist takes something that’s yours and you want it back...then this makes you an infamous bully.

Any idiot with brain matter can design and build the [what’s mostly a] silly little vacuum cleaner anyway they choose, but Amway (working with Bissell), Hoover UK, Hoover/Maytag, TTI (Hoover USA and VAX, and/or other manufacturers) leach vice lead.  Society needs leaders more than suckers (suck the life from others), and that’s history and a demonstrable fact and not an opinion.

Do you think TTI/Dirt Devil's using Model numbers that parallel Dyson's is an attempt to con the public or is it an attempt to separate and differentiate themselves (from Dyson) in the mind of the public?

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/01/dirt-devil-launches-high-powered-vacuum-cleaners-195683


Dyson Invents Big

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

To my knowledge HOOVER had a patent that ran 30 plus years on the beater bars and its agitator.  At that time patents ran longer.  I might be wrong, but I don't recall any vacuum makers violating the HOOVER patent until the protected time expired.  As you know HOOVER also used in concert with the beaters bars the famous slogan: "It beats, as it sweeps, as it cleans."  And the corrollary also printed/inscribed on all HOOVER uprights for many years: HOOVER makes rugs last longer.  No vacuum makers ever sued over the veracity of these HOOVER claims.  Since HOOVER used them for many years without any dissent/copying I presume all believed them to be true and owned/used solely by their originator: HOOVER.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:
The lawsuit is the vehicle to get publicity and tell the story of the communist sponsoring (perhaps) and aiding their manufacture’s in buying up American and UK brand names and then knocking-off or nearly knocking-off ‘the countrymen they sell to’ story needs to get out and be told repeatedly (in the press and in schools).  People in the UK and American need to decide what they need most...  home grown inventions and innovations and protecting these assets that are proven wealth creators and job creators (short and long term) or do they need cheap goods 'screw anyone-at any cost.’


Dyson Invents Big

DysonInventsBig wrote:

The UK trade law is clear.  15 years on design unless product is marketed then 10 years.  Whatever happens earlier.  The issue is: Does the supposed Vax copy violate the law?  The UK courts will determine the answer [fortunately] based on the written law not emotions.  I note with interest Vax's defense.  It's not arguing the letter/time of the law which to me seems like a definite win for Vax, but the principle of the law:  Vax claims it doesn't copy dyson, period end of story.  Vax asserts a cadre of in-house designers to claim credit for the design.  Very interesting IMHO.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:  I dont know DIB, but its a hell of a funny that for all that Dysons remain to be unique, they weren't first to create a clear dust bin or adding colour on their models. How pedantic do you want to become? I don't see past companies taking Dyson to court simply because Dyson have used something similar.

For the record I don't think that Dirt Devil are out to snag Dyson would be customers by using a "DC" code. I'm assuming that they've used up virtually every model number they've had with the preceding "DD/Dirt Devil," letters on past models. After all, in Europe and UK Dirt Devil don't just make floorcare appliances and most of their entire ranges have the "DD" lettering identifier. Also, Dirt Devil as you may know aren't a premium brand and will probably never be a premium brand thanks to their budget builds and market share. Thus consumers aren't going to be easily fooled by a Dyson like model just because Dirt Devil happens to have a "DC" in the model name.

vacmanuk wrote:

Agree with you vacmanuk.  Vacuum and car makers are copycats.  When Lexus launched in 1998 it copied the model numbers and series of Mercedes Benz and BMW on class and motor size.  No lawsuits.  If anything, customers are confused by the alphabets and numbers and don't rely on them for buying.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote: vacmanuk wrote:
I'll address one point.

Of...  DCC017 | DC17 or DCC019 | DC19
Given that Red TTI has a history of taking what they did not create and then saying Red ran out of name/combination choices or letter/number combination choices is laughable.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

The issues are: Do the DD models with similar numbers pawn themselves off as dysons and thereby profit from doing so?  Proving the latter is very hard to do if DD vacuum sales exceed those of dyson sales.  And, last I heard they do and have for many years.  Using similar numbers as dyson is funny IMHO and more a barb at Sir James and dyson.  Your emotional insanity over it is extremely laughable to me.  I suspect when Lexus emulated the models numbers of the prime luxury car makers MB and BMW in 1998 it was for the same reason[s].  As I said most customers pay little or no attention to the alphabet and number models whether cars or vacuums.  As Shakespeare says:  Much to do about nothing.  And: Me thinks you doth protest too much.  Have your pick/both.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I don't buy/accept the glowing dyson self-made claims that its sales lead the industry.  Show me the proof.

Carmine D. 

Well if you think my suggestion that the TTi policy of using similar Dyson codes are laughable, I think you're under false pretences to think buyers could ever be confused between a Dyson and a Dirt Devil.

vacmanuk wrote:

As many consumers find it laughable that the cheaper TTI HOOVER models [$100-$250] continually whoop dysons [$500 plus] in the CR ratings and rankings.  Dyson just doesn't get any respect by the industry experts.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Speaking of laughable.  How do you think CR got the name of Clown Reports ?

HARDSELL wrote:

Because it is called:  The bible of the car-buying public and now rates Ford's quality higher than toyota's?  Source: Paul Ingrassia.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Gee, a bad rating after a problem is known by the world.  Such genius.

Keep the thread on topic.   That  does not mean inserting the word "vacuum" in a post about cars.

Mike_W wrote:

How about fans?  Do they qualify for a vacuum forum?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Let me see if I understand correctly.  If Mike can't honestly answer a question for concern that it might incriminate him, he locks the thread?  Ah  Got my answer.  Thanks Mike.

Carmine D.

Vax's popular Mach Zen vacuum cleaner IS different to anything else you can buy

http://www.vax.co.uk/pr/dyson-vs-vax

M00seUK wrote:

Hi M00seUK,

I'm not looking to pick a fight but this article reads awfully like yet another Dyson press releaase.  If there is indeed an actual lawsuit, this looks like a put up job.  I didn't feel much informed of by way of a news article's required "who, when, where and what" and came away wondering why the author invested so many words regarding Dyson's "back story" AND a photo of the irrepressible Jimmy D holding a Dyson Ball.  Could this be a photo op?  Whatever it is, the story stinks on hot ice.  Personally I think the guy's looking for a little extra free cash so that he can put the new boat in dry dock and have it painted a different shade.

By all means -- and I insist --  please do take my feeling on the matter with a grain of salt as I do not love Dyson product in the first place.  YET, there is one small point.  The Zen vacuum quite obviously does not closely resemble any canister vacuum that Dyson actually put out on the market.

Please inform me of, save for an actual, documented break-in into Dyson's vaults and theft of plans that it might have but never used, of the illegalities here.

That said, and I again am wont to be corrected, I still maintain that certain things once on the market are going to develop variations on a given theme to such a degree that all the whining over small and moot points is not going to get you anywhere.

Dyson did not itself invent cylonic vacuum cleaners.  The idea was already there by way of central vacuum systems and dust collection systems.  Dyson only came up with an idea of how to compact the technology for use in what would be considered a standard-sized portable household vacuum. And, even in light of that, there were still pre-Dyson vacuums claiming or alluding to whirlwind force and virtue.

I wonder who sued American Electrolux for finally shedding its long used metal runners for wheels other tank-type and canister vacs had been using all along.  I wonder who Electrolux sued for using sled-like runners.  This suit, or promise of it, is all more like an airplane manufacturer suing another airplane company because its product has wiing too.

Judges are not product designers nor are product designers the best judges in this case.  The issue is whether there was genuine intent to steal a manner of design and commit fraud.  What else is copyright infringement?  That will be hard to prove.

Venson

Hello Venson,
Copyright designs are an emotive issue. It must be frustrating for a company to create an individual, recognised style and then watch as competitors try to erode their market share by bringing out copycat designs that look much the same. As flattering as it might be, they should be competing on features and reinforcing their own style / reputation.

In the same vain, I'm not over-fond of companies (Partially in software, partially in the US) getting patents for very broad technologies which stifle competition.

Like many, I can see that the Vax design is very similar to Dyson's canisters. It's hard to imagine that the design brief was anything other than 'make it look similar to the Dyson'. What I don't know is where the line gets drawn on registered designs. If the high court has ruled that it doesn't infringe, that's where it stands... at least for the moment.

Dyson have said they'll appeal and are trying to win the heart + minds of the general public:-

"Dyson says it is baffled by the result: “There are plenty of other shapes that TTI could have chosen…Large round wheels, the angle of the clear bin, the line of the handle; does TTI’s Vax-badged machine resemble Dyson’s design?”

http://electricpig.co.uk/2010/07/29/dyson-loses-case-against-vax-design-infringement-but-what-do-you-think/

A spokesperson for Dyson added: “We’re disappointed, but we want to throw it out to people to see what they think.”

It's true to say that Dyson didn't invent cylonic vacuum cleaners as such, but they did invent and patent a dual-cyclone vacuum cleaner, which made the process much more feasible and consequently, sellable.

Dyson really do have a cheek, because this isn't the first time Dyson have taken other brands to court and won. It is true that the DC02 have been copied in several areas by Vax. but then so have other brands. Im quite happy for once that another brand has actually won a court battle against Dyson. The courts must be pretty fed up with Dyson taking companies to court.

Also the DC02 isn't made anymore so its a bit crazy of Dyson to take Vax to court over a latest design. It's not as if its going to hurt Dyson sales.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

That's usually what losers say when they don't have a legal leg to stand on.  The high court ruled that the VAX cann beats dyson's 15 year old cann on every front, feature, and spec.  How does a copy beat the original?  Hands down no less.  At half the price of dyson's DC23 cann.  What's the court of popular opinion suppose to do to change the ruling to dyson's favor?   Sir James needs to take the court's ruling to heart and get to work in the drawing room not the court room.

Carmine D.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I'd expect for a current machine to be better than the one it was 'inspired' from over 15 years ago. Compare it to the DC05 and they look even more similar. The reference to the DC02 must be for historic design / patent reasons.

It's clear that Dyson do compete on innovation more that anyone else in domestic vacuums, but it would be commercial suicide for them if they were to sit back each time and let anyone copy their designs or infinge on their patents. The upside for the consumer is that with judgements like this, they now have to work even harder on delivering the goods.

But it's it's likely they'll be other days in court...

M00seUK wrote:

If you're talking the VAX lawsuit, the VAX cann clearly trumps the 15 year old dyson on every spec including price at half as much as the current DC23.  175 british pounds for the VAX Zen versus 350 british pounds for dyson.

If you're fast forwarding to a future suit with LG Kompressor, you're giving me bigger belly laughs.  You post a combo tool as evidence of copyright infringement and suing?  A similar tool used 15 plus years apart is evidence of a vacuum copyright infringement?  Does dyson have a patent on the tool design?  If so, it should sue over it.  To its credit, dyson tools are good.  But they don't justify the exorbitant product prices for dysons and frivolous lawsuits mucking up the courts.

Dyson needs more homework in the drawing room and not the court room.  Then price the products fairly for consumers to buy/use.  That's how dyson will win favor in the court of public opinion with its consumers.  If not, dyson's vacuum products will be defunct and collectible items for the future and/or pallets of junk sold by the dirty dozen [including the tools].

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

OMG that's the SAME tool that has been put on the Vax Mach Air model! Its one tool I can't stand using.

Hi,

Which? magazine's spin on the court decision follows.

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/07/vax-vacuum-isnt-a-dyson-rip-off-court-rules-222182

Venson

vacmanuk wrote:

OMG that's the SAME tool that has been put on the Vax Mach Air model! Its one tool I can't stand using.

I have the granddaddy to this tool that came with my Sears LG-cloned bagless can several years ago.  Almost the same design but it went one step further.  The brush for dusting slides off leaving a piece with velcro on its lips for vacuuming upholstery.  Another interesting idea that was a pain in the neck.  It was quite easy to get the tip of your finger pinched when pressing the buttons to extend it.

Venson

By the way, I meant to mention that the DC02 Dyson in the Which? article is very similar to the long gone Fantom canister vac. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXDKH8zZmvI

How'd that happen?  Anyway . . .

If imitation is the greatest form of flattery then what does theft of the actual product represent?  A perverse assessment of value?  Beauty, value and all that being in the eye of the beholder -- maybe the following article will make ol' JD feel a little better.  The world wants Dyson so badly there are those prepared to steal them.  Bet ya Dirt Devil wishes it could say the same.  This, as far as I know, this __ vacuum cleaner theft -- is an American phenomenom. Is there much report of Dyson theft in Europe?

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100729/NEWS24/7290502

Venson

Venson wrote:
Ah but didn't Dyson go to Amway who at that time owned Fantom? Their original bagless vacs were carbon copies of Dyson. There's a whole big bust up section in Dyson's book somewhere about it.

As you were saying about that dusting tool, Venson, here's the Vax one:





Now, as you can see if you slide down the brush over the crevice, it then becomes the dusting brush function. Then the thing can be reversed so that it can pick up hair etc with the lint pickers. I can't stand it when it has to be used in this way as it reminds me of using an upturned cup on a floor. It isn't practical and it doesn't glide very well either.

vacmanuk wrote:

Vacmanuk, Venson:

You're referring to dyson's G Force sold briefly door-to-door in 1983 in the UK.  Displayed in the Design Museum.  From 1982-4, James Dyson tried to interest European firms in buyiong the design.  Notta.  Dyson was hell bent on making their bagged vacuums obsolete and killing the market in paper bags.  Nobody in Europe wanted anything to do with dyson for those reasons.  Dyson sold the rights in America in 1984.  After a year the buyer pulled out probably for the same reasons as the Europeans.  Dyson took the G force to Japan where it was acclaimed.  Progress was halted while dyson sued his former American licensee for patent infringement over a machine brought out after the breakup of their business relationship.  After this was settled, royalties from the US enabled dyson to set up a factory in Malmesbury in 1992.  Dyson began making refined designs under the dyson name there.  Led to the dual cyclone in 1993 in upright and canister form.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Thanks Carmine,

My history on these is not great.  What I recall is the heavy-duty TV advertising done here in the States for teh Fantom upright and the appearance of the Fantom canister. Can't verify chicken or egg in this case but I do remember the top-side hose attachment, etc., on the depicted European version being all too similar to the Fantom can that was sold here in America.

Venson