Handle shapes - copyright?

[Fido]

I have lots of bells. Many have very similar handles. So do shaving brushes. Some handles look very much like another. I was looking at a web site the other day where I saw a manufacturer offering a wide variety of handles many of which looked very much like typical Rooney, Simpsons or Plisson styles and many others. Many are fairly typical shapes.

So is there any kind of copyright which governs the shape of the handles on any product? How wary do custom brush makers have to be? Is a new manufacturer obliged to avoid shapes already in use?

I might have to think twice next time I have a bell made if there is an issue here.

 

[antdad]

Under "passing off" law the question is whether the maker is deliberately misleading you into purchasing that product and damaging the goodwill created by in this case the larger more established manufacturer.

It might be possible to demonstrate that an independent brush maker is "passing off" a design of major brush maker as one of their own.
If the brush design and company logo were "similar" and you were then to call your brush a Sinpson Tubby, I think you would have a case as this is clearly deliberately misleading.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off</a><!-- m -->

There is also an "industrial design right" that can used to protect the visual design of not purely functional objects.

 

[henkverhaar]

There's patents, trade marks, and copyright.

Functional designs (including shapes) can be patented, but (consequently) not copyrighted or trademarked. Trade marks are by definition non-functional and should be highly distinctive and identifying, and are then protected, whether or not deposited. Artistic expression (whether in text, image, or shape) are copyrighted. Note that a copyright only protects actual text/wording, not content or meaning (for that you would need a patent, if the content is patentable). So under copyright I cannot copy a text verbatim, but I can rephrase the contents to my heart's content.

A handle is a functional design, therefore a handle could be patented (only a shaving brush handle is prior art, so in the public domain). The shape of such a handle, if non-functional, could be copyrighted or even trademarked, but for that, it would need to be distinctive enough that it would be immediately recognizable as Mr X's handle, or it would need to be artistic. Since handle shapes, as they are right now, are pretty nondistinctive (everyone has a set of fairly similar handles), I would hazard a guess that none of these would be held up in a court of law as eligible for copyright or trade mark. Even the shape of the Semogue handles, which is somewhat 'unique' is probably not unique enough for that.

As said, a patentable, functional design cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. More explicitly, a design for which a patent was granted cannot, after the patent runs out, be declared a trade mark (for an additional period of protection). There's a fairly high-profile court case example of this in the US that clearly concluded this (Fuji vs. Pacific Bay, on the shape of single leg fly rod guides).

 

[antdad]

I agree brush handles per se are not really unique enough to warrant copyright or have distinct functionality to be patentable.


In fact most handle designs overlap considerably, if Rooney and Simpson swapped their logos over I doubt that many would be able to tell who made what. It might then come down to when the idea entered the public domain, so if you have a eureka idea, send yourself the plans by registered post.

That at least can serve as "proof" that you had the idea first, as long as you don't open it or tell anyone.

 

[henkverhaar]

Mmm. I doubt that that would be enough. Unless your 'idea' is distinctive enough that anyone would recognize it as a 'logo', making your 'idea' and putting it in the marketplace puts it in the public domain, unless you formally deposit it. Rather than mailing it to yourself, depositing at a notary or attorney would probably be a little safer. For true legal status, though, you would have to submit something to a patent office or trade mark office (TM unless, as said, the 'logo' status is unique enough to warrant copyright/trade mark status in and of itself).

Not that mailing it to yourself is worthless -- it WILL serve to set a time line.

 

[antdad]

Sure...just a first and cheap line of defence, before you get a proper application in.

 

[Fido]

Here are some brushes that could be branded with my Company logo then. And they bear no existing makers mark.

 

[antdad]

I think Simooney would be a great name or Roonson's...original huh?