Custom Baits - Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: swingoil on 01/16/13 18:57 UTC
-
Received a cease and desist from Zoom Baits today on the Mad Dad Craw. If your selling these just wanted to give a heads up!
-
Did they give you the number of the patent it is breaking?
....Bill
-
Yeah U.S. Patent No. 6,237,275 and they enclosed a copy ot the patent which is 11 pages long. I taled to the attorney and he said the patent infringment was the ridges on the claws.
-
Also on the Maniac Craw from another mold supplier
-
That sounds like the same patent that Strike King has on the Rage Tail ridges I think. IIRC they (Rage) are very specific on the size of the raised ridge and Jason made it differently to conform.
....Bill
-
Bill the bait that they sent me the patent info on is the super chunk which looks nothing like either bait.
I would fight it if I had the time or money.
Frank
-
BigHawg it has nothing to do with the bait itself it has to do with the ridge on the claws. That is what the attorney from Zoom told me. I just have the 4" Mad Dad
-
Swingoil I looked at zoom baits and the ridge on there baits don't even come close to the ridge ccm has. And zoom is a one sided ridge and ccm is a two sided ridge it's not even remotely the same. mike
-
I realize that Mike but I'm not taking the chance. I googled the cases that Zoom have taken to court and they won them all. Like I said before if I had the money I would take them to court but I don't so I removed the baits from my website. I just wanted to give everybody that's selling these baits also a heads up.
Frank
-
Biting my tongue is hard to do sometimes...I'm still chewing on this one.
-
Zoom always goes after the smaller guy. Bass Pro Shop sells exact copies of zoom products and now the new z drop by zoom is the exact same tail design as the cross tail shad.
-
Zoom probably can't say too much what bass pro does if they want their product on bass pro's shelf. It just sucks I have a couple other baits that have ridges on the flappers but I don't think I'm going to put them on the website now! >:(
-
Does this mean that CCM/Do-It will help fight the cease and desist or pull the molds all together?
-
I also got one for the manic craw from another company.
-
Id like to hear from jason and the do-it crew on this one. This problem always seems to happen with a great bait. I've had four or five different molds I've had to stop using from various mold dealers and it really sucks when it happens. I'm not a big co. And I budget for one mold a month or 150$ if I'm saving for a larger cavity so when you purchase 6 multicavity molds over half a year and then it comes up you can't sell the bait you are already gonna be out 10% on the molds if you can sell them plus the cost of the stock you can no longer sell. I guess its just part of the game. Not to change the subject but what about dels cl molds or his sh molds? I love both these baits but am afraid to sell them. I mean they have the zoom brands abbreviations even lol. Sorry for the rant
-
Basshunter I think the cl mold is like berkleys chigger craw crazy legs. I would google berkleys patents before I bought it and zooms super hog
-
I've received word this morning that the Do-It Team will be taking a look into this in more detail. I will let you know what comes of that as soon as I know more.
Jerry
-
Thanks Jerry
-
I'll play the devil's advocate here... Zoom has every right to protect their design.
If you read the patent well, and observe the exact areas they are talking about, you can recognize the infringement. The courts have proven this over and over as stated in a previous post. Zoom will win unless you are not infringing.
Lots of folks using the Trick Worm name as well. Zoom will come after you for that too since it is trademarked. Same as Sweet Beaver, etc.
If I made a bait or had a design I created (and then paid the huge sume of money to get it patented), I would protect it as well since I would have had a LOT of R & D $$$ and $$$ in getting the patnet tied up on the front side.
This is not a big guy vs little guy issue, it is a business issue. Protection of property happens in all businesses in every sector.
They could move against the company making the mold as well.
Jim
-
Have fun people. I just got finished with a lawsuit from Cubby tackle for an alleged infringment issue. I fought it and I pointed out several differences in the designs between what I was making and what they were making. When it got to court the judge was pretty peeved it [the case] was even there and he instructed to settle outside of the court....this was a federal court. In the end I agreed to change the name on the bait I was making and that was the end of it.
By the way....Cubby Tackle is not a company owned by fisher-people.....its owned by a Chicago investment firm and they were the ones that tried to force feed me thier demands. One demand was to destroy my mold and since I bought it on an open market without any mention of infringement attached to it I told them on the original contact to go "enjoy" themselves.
I'm not familiar with the frog mentioned here but those cubby baits I am well in the know about. The bait I was making had four or five points of contention and the case would have been tossed had it gone to trial.
-
I'm kind of amazed that they got the patent in the first place....
Seems like many of the elements are "obvious" and many would have had prior art. I find it hard to believe that the bait illustrated in the patent was the first (ever) to have a ridge on an appendage. Plus...putting on ridge on an appendage to disrupt flow is not a new (novel) concept! (think spoilers on an airplane wing).
Can anyone think of a bait that had a ridge on it to disrupt flow (and thus cause flapping) that was sold BEFORE the patent was filed? I suspect if you could find a Bass Pro Shop catalog that was published before the date the patent was filed ....the issue would go away!
Plus...if they are selectively enforcing their patent (ignoring Bass Pro Shops for example) this could also invalidate their patent and the rights to enforce it.
-
Bass Pro may not be infringing at all. They may have licensing to use it the design. As a patent holder you can sell rights to use your patent design.
-
Ummm....maybe...but they would need a license statement on the package and marketing materials.
-
I've been following this thread with interest and was waiting for someone to express my "take" on the whole thing. Ghost hit the nail on the head and Tom then pounded the nail home. You see, anybody can sue anybody for anything. That doesn't mean they are going to win, it just means they have a constitutional right to do so.
Zoom probably spent a lot of money in the design, manufacture, testing, and marketing of that mold. They decided that fish were being caught with "their" mold and they wanted to protect "their" investment in something "they" designed, hence the patent. Now we come into the picture, the weekend warrior locking himself in the garage making cool looking plastic things that we can brag to our wife about. After a while we buy a mold that makes a bait that a fish will actually bite and we sell it to a neighbor who tells a friend and before you know it we have a website and a Facebook page and we're in the market for a condo in Hawaii. Zoom finds out and we get this cease and desist thing.
In my ever so humble opinion, Zoom is in the right. They have a constitution right to defend what they say is "their" property. However, just because Zoom says it is their property does not automatically mean it is. They have to prove it in court, which means lawyers, court costs, time, restraining orders, cease and desist orders, and a bunch of other things you don't want to think about. For us, the weekend warrior, we don't usually have the resources available to defend ourselves, much less have the money to pay damages if we lose a lawsuit.
That's where Tom comes in. First and foremost, Tom is a great guy. I wouldn't know him if I bumped into him, but just reading his posts and whatnot lead me to believe he is a lot like Shakespeare who said, "The first thing we do is shoot the lawyers." or something like that. When he got involved with the the Cubby thing he probably not only said "NO", but "Hell NO". And he fought it and it sure sounds like he won. I admire him for doing that. Most of us do not have the tenacity or wherewithall to do what he did.
Which brings us back to Zoom. I don't know if Zoom is right or wrong, and for the purposes of this post, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Swingoil and other small business owners have to anticipate stuff like this happening and try to protect against it. One big way of doing that is to have a good insurance policy in place to indemnify you for any losses you incur to include defense costs. It is probably expensive, but it's a cost of doing business. It's also good to have a good company like CCM / Do-It watching your back.
I hope I didn't ramble too much.
-
Thanks for the input Denny you brought up some good points.
-
?
-
I suppose if we use the bait for ourselves and not sell it, no harm no foul. Right?
In truth, no. You can't violate that patent by replicating the portion of the bait that is covered under the patent. Not for personal use even.
In reality, who would come in your boat and check on that. These companies troll forums, facebook, ebay, google for info.
It is easy to say Zoom is wrong UNTIL you are the one somebody "borrows" your design from or name from. When the shoe is on the other foot, a light bulb goes on.
I suspect that CCM and/or Do-It will recieve some correspondence soon.
Jim
-
P.S. Zoom used to be very active in this type of activity in the past. They seemed to have stopped for a year or so but now are back in the game.
If I was using the mold that is close to the Ultra Vibe speed craw, I would be ready for a certified letter to be coming your way.
Jim
-
Ouzo baits tried to use that worm and now are nowhere to be found. The best thing is to stay away from any molds that resemble zooms products. But Howe re it is ok for zoom to steal the crosstail shad design and call it a z drop. Maybe jackall should contact zoom about this.
-
JUST poured my first Mad Dad 3XL from my mold I JUST ordered.....great! :o Time will tell, it might have to become a "personal use only" mold..... :-[
-
Ever thought that Zoom might make the Bass Pro worms? Or Jackall the crosstail bait?
I doubt that Bass Pro has a worm factory.
Not sure about the bait industry but I work for Cooper Tire. Mickey Thompson, Dick Cepeck, Mastercraft, Sears and the list goes on and on are all Cooper made. Lots are made in the same mold, we just change the name plates.
-
Southern Plastics in Eufala, Ala. makes most (if not all) of BP's domestically made plastics.
-
This will need to be researched, but the Mad Dad has a raised lip on the inside and outside of the claws of equal thickness. The Zoom patent claims a wedge shaped leg, similar to the rage patent, but not as thick. I would follow their request out of respect until this can be worked out. Hopefully this is just a misunderstanding and can be cleared up quickly.
Jason
-
What bait do they have that this is infringing? ???
I dont see a bait that they carry that has that ridge..
-
Here is a link to the patent.
Patent US6237275 - Artificial bait structure - Google Patents
http://www.google.com/patents/US6237275?dq=zoom+bait+co.+patents&ei=CJfsUI2hF5Og0gGHhoGQDg
Here is a picture of both:
(http://zoombait.com/wp-content/gallery/super-chunk/037-038-black-super-chunk.jpg)
Mad Dad Claw Example
(http://caneycreekmolds.com/assets/images/md_craw_chunk_bait.jpg)
Their ridge runs the entire outside from tip to body. The MD Craws runs from the inside of the appendage tip partially around the outside - not connecting to the body, and also has a ridge running on the inside, also not connecting to the body. Like I said above, research needs to be done. I don't see an infringement on their claim, and overall see a unique improvement by wrapping the tip to the inside and adding the additional inside ridge.
With all that said, error on the side of respect until this can be worked out. I have always taken an approach of intellectual respect, protected or not. Once something more is known I'm sure it will be posted here.
Jason
-
its the legs that is the problem. correct??
-
its the legs that is the problem. correct??
Not really the "legs" I suppose, but the "claws"...or to be more specific, the rib on the edges of the claws... (based only on what I've read here and only as I currently understand it).
How's this for a recipe:
Combine Jason with the Do-It Team and add a sprinkle of communication and research surrounding the issue... don't forget to stir... and I'm sure we will come to a perfectly simple resolution. Though I suppose it will be a few days before we know too much more. (and don't ask ME 'cause I know as much as the rest of Y'all right now).
Based on the pictures Jason posted... I don't see much reason for extensive concern... but I gotta be me.
We'll all find out,
Jerry
-
hell that zoom thing doesn't even compeer to Jason's I wouldn't even buy that zoom bait
-
hell that zoom thing doesn't even compeer to Jason's I wouldn't even buy that zoom bait
LOL... you and me either. 8)
-
hell that zoom thing doesn't even compeer to Jason's I wouldn't even buy that zoom bait
That's the reason Zoom has their panties in a wad, no one wants their bait.
-
Matt, not sure Zoom needs you (or any of us) to buy their baits..they sell more plastics than anyone in the world....just sayin', they have insane sales in the South, Mid Atlantic regions.
-
Jerry, Zoom has (allegedly) sent a cease and desist order to one of your customers. Isn't it a bit surprising they haven't sent anything to you guys? Looks like they would go after the root instead of the appendages if they were concerned about theft of their patented properties/products. Maybe this is different in the fact that usually they go after companies that are in mass production vs. people that have bought smaller molds, shooting much smaller quantities.
I do know several people that have dealt with Zoom in similar issues...and found out Zoom is very aggressive
-
floridagriimp,
If you think that letter would wind up on my desk, you are dreaming... I wouldn't see that kind of mail in our house unless I were the only one there on account of the apocalypse or something... We may or may not have a letter, I do not know. The fact is, we're gonna be looking into it regardless.
Jerry
-
No, not dreaming...maybe your desk isn't where I thought. I don't use those particular baits, though they look like some excellent baits indeed, just can't sell them to redfish, trout, snook fishermen. I'm sure those fish would tear 'em up though.
I know of one "judgement" that ended in a kangaroo court in Georgia where a local judge made a good ole boy "decision" for a friend of the community...a decent man got a mold and a patent stolen.
I hope, no, I pray it ends with a righteous judement...an ending that's right in God's eyes.
-
We (you and I) will find out in due time I'm sure.
Jerry
-
I miss understood the way it was wrote. Me. And my two year old read it the first time. Hard to read. With him pushing keys on the laptop.
The two year old doesn't think they look the same either. Lol.
-
First off that zoom bait is very popular.
The patent has nothing to do with what the bait looks like. Meaning it does not have to be a craw. ANY bait with that raised ridge on an appendage is covered.
The Rage patent covers all their baits from craws to worms etc.
And from what I hear, many people have challenged the Zoom patent and all have lost.
....Bill
-
Rage?? that's Strike King, right?? (rage craw, rage shrimp. et al)
-
I just got a mad dad 3" mold for Christmas from my in-laws, and now it collects dust. >:( :(
-
In my instance the mold maker was contacted with a cease and desist but also threatened if he did not voluntarily destroy his molds on hand, the machining program for it and provide names of persons who bought the mold. The maker contacted me a day before I got the hate mail.
Looking at the pics of the two products I'd say to heck with them. The claws are different. But they won't go away.
I'd write a response to the cease and desist letting them know that until this gets settled in a court of law, the mold will be in other hands for safe-guarding and that no sales are being done using it. DO NOT tell them who has the mold. I never let mine out of the house but told them it wasn't available for setroying nor would it be until a judges gavel said to do so and only then if I could locate it. :D
This isn't a case where the company is contacting you....it is legal beagles that the company has on retainer. AND like my case with cubby, Zoom is probably owned by some huge investment holding corporation with mega millions of worth. Cubby is a store front while ownership lies with a Chicago based corp which goes a long way towards understanding why the products they offer are so out dated.
Hold your ground. Don't relent. Do your homework.
When I got tied up in my mess I sat down with every catalog I could get my mitts on and studied baits similar to the one that was suing me. They argued that thier product had a "knob-like" tail button. First I got the definition of Knob and knob-like and put it on paper. Then I studied every small bait similar to their bait, noting the tail conformation. I had pages of baits of similar design listed by name and maker. I bought one of each for the sake of proof-in-hand. In the end I knew exactly, specifically every point of difference between the bait I made and their bait right down to the number of ridges found on their baits body. I also had a letter from the US patent office telling me specifically what I needed to do to patent a bait. In my querie I asked if "knob-like" was sufficient to describe a tail feature. The answer in my reply stated that if I offered a description of that nature it would be denied because it was "too broad and vague".
As I mentioned before, you want to respond to everything they send you, telling them that you have no intention of giving up anything and will certainly not relinquish personal property to them to be destroyed. If they insist on recieving it, insist on renumeration and be certain that the sum you ask for is going to hurt. The mold is yours, bought on an open market without any catches or clauses or conditions attached to it. In correspondence listing similarities, respond in such with your list and do not be afraid to ask them why other bait makers with similar shapes are not included in this suit. Be specific in every thing you state and ask. If you find ambiguous wording in their paperwork, terms like I found such as "knob-like", write the US patent office and ask if those words sufficiently describe a product's feature to be included in the application for a product. Zoom is coming after you with specific's and if there is anything that is NOT specific in their description it will go a long ways on your behalf in the end. Document this stuff.
I did not make a single court appearence until the default hearing came up. Then I appeared and I did not notify the opposition. I did not notify the court. I just appeared at the door twenty minutes before the hearing was supposed to begin. The attorney for the other half just about swallowed a chair. It seems that he was never registering any of my replies with the court as I returned them to him. He is required by law to register everything I sent in reply at least 4 days prior to a scheduled hearing. When he found out who I was he disappeared and actuaaly delayed the beginning of federal court because he was down at a clerk's office trying to force these documents into evidence. Said clerk handed them to the judge while he was chewing this gyy's hiennie. Said judge went ballistic, apologized to me for having to make a 100 mile trip for nothing, instructed that in lieu of the "new" information this case was backed completely up to the beginning, took my contact information down and linked me up with a group of pro-bono laywers who handle lopsided federal patent cases and finished the day off with a warning to their suit that he [the judge] didn't want this case in court and wanted it settled out of court. Period. Their lawyer came over afterward and asked if I'd be willing to do this, this and otherwise to get it settled and I said no, that I'd wait for contact from my court appointed hunting party. Then I said I'll change the name of the bait on my site to no-name bait. So the two groups of legal beagles went to war, I simple said that I wanted my day in court using the info I gathered. I sent copies to my counsel [notarized of course] with instructions that they were to be used in my defense should we get that far. Papers were sent back and forth for two weeks. Another trial date was set. A couple days before the next hearing the ceo/president of that Chicago investment firm sign off on the suit. All they got from me was the name change of the bait. Period.
Hold your ground. You can do it and its about time that some of these sue-happy corporate dinks get set back on their heels. Every time I think of my little victory I feel the sun shinin.......
-
If you as an individual can consult legal council, i would. Unless you can afford the x 3 award against you, i would consider treading lightly.
For an individual, Zoom could draw this out to the point where it bankrupts you easily.
Like i said, consult legal advice. Zoom is serious and this could impact you very seriously on the financial side of things.
Jim
-
PS you X 33 means if you loose, the damages are automatically tripled. So if they win and the award and legal fees are $300,000, ypu owe Zoom $900,000!!!!
I have spiken with several patent attorneys in my time. Most cases cost $500,000 to $750,000 if the go to court, just for legal fees only.
Jim
-
Jim I did what the attorney asked me to do I pulled those baits from my web page. I can't afford an attorney or a lawsuit nor do I have the time. I haven't seen where Zoom has lost any of the cases they have taken to court either.
Frank
-
I would have done the same thing Frank.
Jim
-
This just seems a bit crazy :o
I am not one for infringing on others property but it is not clear to me what was infringed. I guess that is for the attorneys to work out. I tried to read the patent language and that stuff is written in some form of Kling-ahn.
On the surface this seems to be very aggressive and a reach on their part.
It is real unfortunate when bullies use the law to squash competition.
I know the law is the law and when it comes down to it nothing really matters in the courts but when you look at this baits you see nothing that similar. This profile, thickness of the ridges and even the fact that the ridge on the MD craw don't cover the entire claw is different. This whole deal just seems unreasonable.
What a bummer.
-
I'm with bassdec. It's hard to read that stuff. And it is a shame. On all parts. I agree zoom has a right to protect there stuff. But these just seems to far.
And Tom. You should have a blog. Love reading your stuff.
-
Tom needs a blog and cooking show! His stories are amazing and inspiring and for his recipes well let's just say my mouth is left watering after reading about them!
-
Zoom is taking it too far?? If Zoom thinks their properties are being violated, stolen, they have a right to take it as far as they see fit. From what I've seen in whom they have gone after, it hasn't been malicious. Other people, companies involved have the right to defend their perceived rights against the charges. The shame of it all is the expense & time involved!! Bigger comanies can wear smaller folks out.
If one feels (like ctom did) to go the David v. Goliath route...make sure you are the one with the slingshot and the 5 smooth stones and God has ordained the battle!
zoom zoom
-
FG and others....
In my case I felt I was right in standing my ground. The further I dug into it, the more I knew that I was right in how I handled it. Every case is different. Ya'll handle it any way you see fit.
-
Is there a way to find out what baits have a patent on them? Do most of the big companies patent there baits? Is senko patented?
-
I deal with Patent issues (and trademark and copyright) issues everyday at work....and believe me...there are a lot of bully's out there that use their patent like a club....even when they know you are not infringing.
We're dealing with a patent infringement case right now where we are being sued in China...by a German company...that had the patent rejected in every other country (including the US and the EU) where they filed it. What really t's me off is they won't settle ...even after we proved to them (and soon to the court) that we were practicing the claims of the patent for more that 5 years before they filed....and we have product in a GM car...3 years before they filed the patent!
But like Denny said...they have the right to sue.
Bottom line for my company is that we won't be bullied no matter how much it costs us! And no...when we win...we won't be able to recover our costs (which have a LOT of 000's behind them!!!). "Cost of Business"!
But Zoom needs to be careful...they have some significant patent violations on their packaging (you can't claim a patent after it expires on your packaging) no matter how much packaging you have "in stock"!!! BIG FINES!!- It would serve the Bully right !
But...all the above being said....maybe (maybe!) the bait does utilize a claim on the patent...and if so...they have every right to protect their investment. But if they are sending out letters just to discourage others from doing business.....shame on them (and where are the Anti-trust and Patent Office people when you need them!).
Just out of curosity...how much market share does Zoom have I wonder??? :D
-
It will all work out the way it should. It will get reviewed by the right people, companies will talk, it will be resolved. I think everyone knows my personal view on knocking off someones bait / intellectual property. I don't have a crystal ball that predicts the future, but I think everything will be fine. We are going to do the leg work on this and will report back. We just need to wait while the wheels turn.
Jason
-
I doubt this really is about sales of a product. Zoom has some good lawyers that probably cant allow anything close to go by. If they didn't pursue some, it may set a precedence in later cases.
Hopefully there will be an amicable result.
Jim
-
Is there a way to find out what baits have a patent on them? Do most of the big companies patent there baits? Is senko patented?
I dont think an entire bait can be Patented. It;s a unique feature of the bait that can be. In this case the raised ridge on the appendage.
I still wonder how Strike King Rage products got a patent approved for such a similar thing that Zoom patented.
Actually I am wondering how either got their patent approved for a feature like that
...Bill
-
Hello friends. I was just reading through some old posts and found this one. I remember this, but never heard the end. Did this ever get some pants put on it in any way?
(and yes, I know this post is 3 years old.... :) ...I have a little to much time on my hands in this season... :) )
-
Hello friends. I was just reading through some old posts and found this one. I remember this, but never heard the end. Did this ever get some pants put on it in any way?
(and yes, I know this post is 3 years old.... :) ...I have a little to much time on my hands in this season... :) )
Fun trip down memory lane.
We reached out to several parties and never received a response from anyone.
-
I thought that may have been the case. Thanks!