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

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.