James Dyson vs Hoover


4. James Dyson vs Hoover



What has made Dyson so successful is the use of a bagless vacuum cleaner which uses two cyclones. One removes small particles while the other collects larger items. This is the patented technology that bitter rival Hoover infringed.
According to Dyson, before him, nobody in the field had thought to sell a bagless vacuum cleaner. However, Alberto Bertali, managing director of Hoover European Appliances Group, claimed that the Tripple Vortex “ recirculated dusty air between three cyclones and did not filter it.”

A counterclaim that the Dual Cyclone’s technology was “nothing that was not generally known within the industry,” was dismissed by the High Court.
Unfortunately for them the High Court ruled that Hoover had intentionally copied the technology at the heart of Dyson’s Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. Dyson said: “Their claims that the Triple Vortex is different were shown to be completely false. Hoover showed no interest in the technology when we were looking for backers.

Then they rubbished it when we brought out the bagless cleaner, insisting that bags are best. Finally they came out with a blatant copy.”

The case centred on a patent taken out in June 1980 by Mr Dyson. It was the first of many patents taken out after 1978 when Mr Dyson became frustrated with a Hoover Junior and its cloth bag. While doing his cleaning, Mr Dyson was "struck by its inefficiency". He then replaced the bag in his Hoover Junior with a miniature cardboard cyclone made airtight with tape. It worked and he had made a crude bagless vacuum cleaner on a cyclonic principle.
The breakthrough that ensured his success came when he combined two cyclones. The inner conical cyclone removed small particles while the outer cylindrical one collected larger items. It was the patent covering this cyclone series that Hoover infringed. Mr Dyson told the judge that before his machine, nobody in the field had commercially proposed or sold a bagless vacuum cleaner. Alberto Bertali, managing director of Hoover European Appliances Group, said the judgment was a setback.

He repeated the Hoover claim that the Triple Vortex recirculated dusty air between three cyclones and did not filter it, therefore avoiding any infringement of the Dyson patent. He said: "We were looking for a much stricter interpretation of the patent."
The breakthrough that ensured his success came when he combined two cyclones. The inner conical cyclone removed small particles while the outer cylindrical one collected larger items. It was the patent covering this cyclone series that Hoover infringed. Mr Dyson told the judge that before his machine, nobody in the field had commercially proposed or sold a bagless vacuum cleaner.
Alberto Bertali, managing director of Hoover European Appliances Group, said the judgment was a setback. He repeated the Hoover claim that the Triple Vortex recirculated dusty air between three cyclones and did not filter it, therefore avoiding any infringement of the Dyson patent.


But Dyson failed to stop Hoover using the “Vortex” trademark on its bagless cleaners.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation

Image
9.  Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011. TBD. There hasn’t been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue. The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists — what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit? Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it’s turning into a very extreme situation for them. We’ll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue. A
Read more

Gucci vs Guess

Image
6. Gucci vs Guess In 2009 Gucci sued Guess for infringing on five Gucci trademarks, including the use of similar logos. This is perhaps unsurprising given that Guess has been subject to 12 copyright complaints over the last ten years. But they have successfully managed to resolve all previous situations almost immediately… until they messed with Gucci. Guess used many of Gucci’s distinctive marks, including a green and red stripe used on handbags, the repeating, inverted GG pattern, and the company’s use of brown and beige colours, mostly used in conjunction with diamond shape patterns. Of course, Gucci came out on top, but not in the way they had hoped for. Initially asking for $221m in damages, the judge told Gucci they were only entitled to an accounting of profits and limited the damages. In the end, Gucci only received $4.7m. Guess was also barred from using most of their designs ever again, primarily the Quattro G patterns in brown and beige colours and the CR
Read more