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 iss...
Read more

The Associated Press vs. Fairey

Image
8. The Associated Press vs. Fairey Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval. In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey’s work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph. The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work. Though there wasn’t a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It’s unlikely that Garcia’s work could have ever reached the level of fame ...
Read more