Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

Smell Of Fresh Cut Grass Trademarked 206

Posted by Hemos from the dear-lord dept.
outlier writes: "One of the few things that couldn't be trademarked or patented has been scents. This has allowed companies to produce inexpensive perfumes that smell like expensive ones. That may change soon, as this article in The Times of London points out. A company just received a trademark for the "smell of fresh cut grass." They're making smelly tennis balls... "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smell of Fresh Cut Grass Trademarked More

Smell of Fresh Cut Grass Trademarked

Comments Filter:
  • Clearly, this patent stuff is getting out of hand. A patent on fresh-cut-grass-smell? So are you in violation if you mow your lawn? What's next, a patent on BO? I know plenty of people who are going to get sued if that one goes through. Come on, when will this maddness stop?
  • Just mow that lawn and wait for the trademark lawyers to arrive!

    Cheers,

    Toby Haynes

  • the smell of oxygen?

    tcd004

    Check out Jant RenoMargolis [lostbrain.com], the least downloaded woman on the Internet.

  • I haven't seen a lot of tennis players sniffing their balls, so they might have a limited market for this...

    The Unfettered Mind: Takuan Sôhô - ISBN: 0-87011-851-X
    My contact details are here [wiretrap.net].
  • Well, they don't mention anything about just patenting the process or anything else as far as I can tell. The brief article really does seem to suggest they've literally patented the scent of grass.

    My dog figured this out years ago. Fresh pile of cut grass. Roll in it. There you go. Now you smell like grass. Whoo. My dog deserves royalties now, you corporate whores. Of course, he also does the same thing with dead birds and other really gross stuff.

    Of all the stupid things I've seen, this is probably the absolute stupidest in a very long time. If there is a god, I hope he or she has deep pockets or else patents like these are going to put him or her out of business.

    Of course, I suppose gods could claim prior-art.
    ---
    icq:2057699
    seumas.com

  • That means people who live in the desert and miss out on the scent of freshly cut grass can now get it in a can. Now if only they could figure out how to package Florida Sunshine...
  • To head the list of smells that will no doubt arise from this topic ... I shall patent the smell of a fart. All producers will owe me royalties.
  • shouldn't there be some sort of fine just for picking such a horribly puntastic name?

    -------
  • I'm no legal expert, but I thought trademarks applied to identifying symbols, etc... unless this company is claiming that the scent of freshly cut grass causes people to think of them. Sort of like microsoft trying to trademark "windows". :-) I would think that a patent on the process of creating the scent would be much more appropriate... but then again, I'm not a lawyer and don't speak the language.
  • The madness _will_ _never_ stop :) Now, my type of "fresh cut grass" differs from that which was mentioned in the article. No worries though, as claiming patent on a "narcotic" seems idiotic to me :)
  • Farts are now patented. Anyone that passes gas must pay me a royalty fee.
  • When I cut my lawn I have to post a sign "Smell Trademarked SenatorInPocket, Inc"?

    What happens if my body odor is similar to a trademarked scent? I have my wages garnished to pay licensing fees?

    Am I going to have to learn to fart a "TM" symbol?
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • I have applied for a few patents to prevent others from smelling like me. I find it very offensive and criminal. I should be the only person to produce my own body odor. It is my intellectual property.

    I wonder if these people are going to replace the world's grass with astroturf. No more lawn mowing. Woo Hoo!
  • This is a BAD THING. It's not bad enough everyone's fighting over copyrights and trademarks as is, that we have to allow yet another market into the fray. Especially since the scent in question is a natural occurance. What are they going to do, sue mother nature for infringment?
  • Hmm...combine this with the device for producing smells [slashdot.org] over the Internet, and it'll make Napster look like a walk in the park (just don't smell the roses).

    Hey! They're bootlegging my "peach smell!"

  • Am I going to need to pay royalties whenever I cut the grass after a light rain?

    Seriously, how can somebody own the rights to a smell that they had no participation in creating? I do see the difference between a famous perfume created by Chanel or some other big fat-cat corporation, but the smell of freshly mown grass. This is a monstrosity of the seriousness of trademarks and patents.

    Why would anyone in their right and sane mind need a tennis ball that costs more because it has a funny smell on it. Just go down to Wal-Mart where they are sold 3$ a half-dozen.
  • Patents != Trademarks != Copyrights

    I see a lot of posts about "you can't patent farting!"--and no one is. They are TRADEMARKING a scent. Totally different legal concept. Read, understand, post.
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • Finally, an excellent excuse to not cut the lawn.
  • It'd make a neat deoderant.
  • Well, 3M has a trademark on "Canary Yellow" so I guess this isn't quite so odd.
    ----
    Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Does this mean that I'll have to pay some British tennis ball manufacturer every time I mow my lawn, because I'm producing that "fresh cut grass" smell? The idea of patenting something that already exists in nature is absurd. This would be like genetically engineering a bluejay and then trying to get a restraining order against God (or whoever/whatever) for manufacturing bluejays without your permission. They'll probably patent the "scent of a woman" next...
  • One of the first gases to be used in warfare, phosgene [epa.gov], smells like grass or hay in low concentrations. So if some country uses this, can we sue for patent-infringement?

    //rdj
  • the sound of a Harley [rbbi.com] and the 'sound of a modem connecting'
  • I disagree with copyrights in general, but this one is more lame. Not because some dollar-perfume company is going to go out of business, but what about companies that are working on creating scents for virtual reality or motion machines? Now they will be required to license the scents.

    And then what, apparently the smell of grass can no longer be duplicated. What next, shit?

    Frij
  • Scents are a very subjective thing. Surely too sujective to be able to trademark? The same applies to taste.

    The point of a trademark is to be something which readily distinguishes your product. I don't see how a scent can do that - our [human] sense of smell is just not refined enough to distinguish a scent well enough for it to be instantly connected to a product.

    Just my two scents worth... (sorry - couldn't resist it!)
  • Personally, the scent of freshy cut graze makes me sneeze.

    Did they include a whiff of lawnmower gasoline as well?

  • does that mean i have to pay each time i want to practice my habit of sniffing my front lawn each time i mow it?

  • Beware missing a shower (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oops, I forgot to shower this morning - Microsoft just emailed and asked for a $2 license fee to cover 'Armpits 2000'. Just hope they don't find out about that spicy burrito I had last night.

    Chris Worth (not an AC; just on the wrong PC)

    chrisworth.com [chrisworth.com]
    Read The Microsoft Matrix [chrisworth.com] and tell me what you think
  • Ironically enough, *you* were 5th.

    The Unfettered Mind: Takuan Sôhô - ISBN: 0-87011-851-X
    My contact details are here [wiretrap.net].

  • This has got to be the most absurd abuse of patents yet.

    Don't tell me nobody could come up with a prior art on smells.

    Somebody needs to try to overturn this...

  • I ain't caring! I'm still gunna make my grass scented perfume. I thinks it could be a big sella. I love the smell of fresh cut grass in the morning. Makes me feel like a man and wishin I wuz cuttin grass right now. So come on ya big lawyer boys, howya gunna stop me when I bottle the dew off my freshly cut lawn? Bring it on mofo!
    --
  • I make a quip about somebody patenting a dog, and a few days later, I see this article about someone trademarking the scent of grass. Anybody got a killer virus handy, I think that extinction [vhemt.com] is the only way we can keep from looking like even bigger buffoons.

  • You cut your grass - I sue you! (Score:4)

    by PenguinX ( 18932 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @04:54AM (#1046280) Homepage
    Is it just me, or is there a serious lack of thought put into legal systems these days? Has humankind finally built up so much history, tradition, and legal mish mash that we have totally abandoned common sense? I'm no legal expert but the point of patents are to protect IP for a certian amount of valuable time. Patent abuse is on a worldwide high because as I see it - with a population of 6 billion there is bound to be someone, or a group, or an entire species with your ideas. I really think that the patent laws need to be stripped out and rewritten in the USA. I know little about G.B. - but it sounds similar.

  • and lawyers are now hoping for more EU-wide registrations.
    Nice to know that at least one group will benefit from this extention to trademark law.
  • "The Dutch marketing firm Senta has secured the first EU-wide trademark for a fragrance and registered the "smell of fresh cut grass". "

    Senta, I beg your pardon, but I have a smell for you to trademark... Pull my FINGER!!!
  • Sheesh! They didn't get a patent, they got a trademark. And it only applies to tennis balls, so you're free to get a trademark on computers that smell of newly-mown grass, if you want. There's fourty-some-odd fields of enterprise, each of which has its own trademark namespace, so to speak.
    -russ
  • Well, if we can patent smells now, I think I'll try for the odor of a frying hard drive. Then, I can sue M$ every time they crisp somebody's computer for patent infringement.

    Wouldn't it be nice?

  • I'm going to patent the smell of a wet dog then sue god.

    This could get more interesting with a few dyslexic lawyers.

  • What if my fart smells different than yours?

    I find mine come in a variety of scents.
  • I would like to take this opportunity to announce my intention to patent the intellectual idea of both patents and copyrights. For far to long, people have been using my idea of patents and copyrights to protect their work, it's time that I also made money for doing nothing more than filling out a form.

    I would also like to patent the English language, oak trees, and cockroaches. No longer will the blatent theft of my property go unpunished.

    Someone needs to teach lawyers how to play Quake or something, so they have something else to do with their free time...
  • Just wait until someone comes up with a StinkCard for your PC and a proprietary smell gets posted to Slashdot...

    "The court hereby orders the defendant, Rob Malda, to remove this smell from Slashdot..."

  • Am I gonna owe them 6 cents every time I cut the grass or are they going to start going after my lawn for trademark infringement?

    Spunk
  • sorry, that link should have taken you here [vhemt.org] I appologize for any inconvenience.
  • ...but it cracked me up when I read anyway.
    Surely when the whole IP area descends into farce like this it can only help promote and change of peoples attitudes & reform.
  • Okay everyone take a deep breathe and reread the article. They aren't giving patents for natural smells but instead allowing companies to trademark the combination of their product and a particular smell (e.g. the smell of beer on a dart, the smell of grass on a tennis ball and smell of roses on tyres). This is very different from the company being giving a patent on the smell of grass.

    PS: It is still an unsavory practice that may lead to an unwelcome trend in the future but in its current incarnation it isn't as bad as most slashdotters are making it out to be.

  • Trademarked, not patented.. All it really means is that other companies can't make their competing product smell like freshly mown grass.. Silly, sure, but not a terrible legal catastrophe that would prevent fine, upstanding Brits from mowing their lawns..

    Not nearly as bad as the copy of 'Method of Exercising a Cat' I have on my cube wall, a patent from 1996 that makes patent infringement out of the time honored tradition that is getting your cat chase the beam of a flashlight..
  • It's not a patent, it's a trademark. You cannot patent things that occur in nature (-- yet, the next DystopyOS release is slated to have this feature).

    ---
    script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
  • This is not a patent, dammit. It's a trademark. They're completely different types of IP.

    A patent protects an invention or process. A trademark protects the marks which identify a business or its products. In this case, the company treats their tennis balls to smell like freshly cut grass. The trademark protection basically protects them from somebody else trying to pass off their tennis balls as this other company's. I agree that it's a silly thing to trademark, but it's NOT A PATENT.

    /peter
  • THe article indicates that this is already done in the US -- anyone have details on that?
  • What would happen if a company were to pursue a trademark infringement on a smell...

    ...only to find that the judge had a cold?

  • So, if I patent the smell of horseshit, will Microsoft owe my a royalty for each of their press releases?

    numb
  • We all just notice the "Patent Pending" icon and post away ...
  • I don't think it's possible to read and understand before you post, and still manage to get your post into the first 100 entries...
  • I think I'll patent the odor of pizza, beer, and sweaty sex. I'll make a bundle!
  • The body governing British trademarks has already granted exclusive rights over two smells - the whiff of beer on dart flights and the scent of roses on tyres.

    I remember back then listening to Howard Stern's show, and he would always mention how Pam Anderson taking a dump probably smell like roses. Is it possible that this exclusive right is just made for Pam Anderon's car? (tires smelling like shit just makes much more sense than roses)

    Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)

  • Sheesh! They didn't get a patent, they got a trademark. And it only applies to tennis balls, so you're free to get a trademark on computers that smell of newly-mown grass, if you want.

    Doh, you're right. So I'd have to patent paper that smells like horseshit. No chance I could get a royalty on electronicly published releases then, even if they still smell like horseshit?

    numb
  • The article says:
    The Dutch marketing firm Senta has secured the first EU-wide trademark for a fragrance and registered the "smell of fresh cut grass".
    And, as the Slashdot headline confirms, it's a trademark, not a patent.

    Now, unless they've actually trademarked "The smell of fresh cut grass" as a slogan, then the journalist who wrote this piece needs a clue. Trademarks are for brands and slogans. "Coca-Cola," along with their logo, using the Coke font, is a trademark. The recipe for Coca-Cola, however, is not patented.

    Objects and cannot be patented. Methods for implementing ideas can be. The recipe for Coke, COULD be patented, but never trademarked.

    I don't see how a scent could ever be patented (let alone trademarked). Perhaps the method for reproducing this scent could be. Perhaps the recipe for the exact mix ingredients for this scent could be. But a scent can't be patented. Same as a colour can't be patented. The good folks at Pantone can register trademarks that correspond with certain colours. The can also patent their methods for creating those colours, but to try and patent a colour would be futile.

  • so (Score:2)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 )

    So their balls smell like grass, what is the big deal?

  • It's a trademark, meaning that that particular recipe is protected. Same as going out and buying "l'eau de skunk" from Macy's. Anyone is allowed to duplicate that scent and sell it where they want, as long as they don't use the exact same formula.
    Sheesh. Nothing wrong with this at all. Well, except for the fact that a tennis ball now smells like a lawn....
  • I can say this is true! I was just out cutting my grass and this lawyer pulls up in a big limo and asks me if I could please step over there for a minute. So I turn of my John Deer and walk over and ask him what's up. He tells me that I can't use John Deer's to cut my grass because it smells like damp freshly cut grass (which it did, I admit) without paying him. So I politely tell him where he can stick his trademark, and now I'm typing this in jail. Man, life sucks! Well, gotta go.. my girlfriend (Bubba) wants to see me.
  • So, if I patent the smell of horseshit, will Microsoft owe my a royalty for each of their press releases?

    No, you'd need to register the smell of bullshit. Products themselves might fall under the protection of dogshit. There's a big difference you know.
  • The protection offered by a trademark is very narow. Most likely the "smell of fresh cut grass" is only trademarked if used on tennis balls. Other people are perfectly free to continue mowing their lawns or letting their kids get grass stains on their pants.

    Sure, this sets a precedent, but it's not any more dangerous than any other trademark. "Athlon" is also a brand of public toilet partition, and, even though Warner Brothers owns several trademarks on the word "Acme", there are literally thousands of "Acme" companies all over the planet.

    Don't get so excited; don't be so exciteable.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • After a lengthy court battle, judges ruled in favor of CK, as a result, Mother Nature must phase roses out of the echo system.

    In rebbuttial, Mother Nature threatened to phase lawyers out of the echosystem.
  • PS: It is still an unsavory practice that may lead to an unwelcome trend in the future but in its current incarnation it isn't as bad as most slashdotters are making it out to be.
    Nothing is as bad as most slashdotters make it out to be.

  • trade dress (Score:3)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @05:18AM (#1046326)
    Okay. Some marketing team for a tennis ball company was trying to come up with a means of making their tennis balls more distinct from the competition. Every tennis ball that meets the specs for tournament play is pretty much the same, so if you are trying to sell a "brand-name" ball at a higher price, you gotta do something to make it stand out. Using a different color is no good, because people expect tennis balls to be a certain color. If it is not day-glow green (or, in a few cases, yellow or orange), it won't be used.

    Therefore, they decided, "why don't we make our tennis balls smell different than all the other ones? The smell of fresh-cut grass will remind people of the Wimbeton tournament, let's go with that. Oh, and we better get a trademark for tennis balls that smell like fresh grass clippings, or the market will be flooded with cheapie knock-offs."

    That's all there is to the story... no need to get your undies in a bunch over smells being "patented". It ain't happening. The editors at /. should be a little embarrassed that they ran this.

  • It's a trademark, *not* a patent or a copyright (Score:3)

    by ephraim ( 192509 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @05:19AM (#1046329)
    There seems to be a huge amount of confusion over the difference between a trademark, a patent, and a copyright.

    A trademark only means that you have linked your product together with a particular symbol. The company in question is claiming that their use of the freshly-cut-grass smell is theirs exclusively to link to tennis balls. It does not mean that they have a copyright on the smell of grass or that they've patented the process for creating that smell. If at this moment you decide to create a perfume that smells like freshly-cut-grass, I doubt that this trademark would prevent you from doing so. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, this trademark only applies to the specific use of the scent on tennis balls. Their acquiring the trademark means that no other company can attempt to sell tennis balls with a marketing campaign that emphasize the scent.

    Other common trademarks include the name "Walkman" for Sony's small portale stereo. Even though just about everybody calls the things "walkmans," only Sony can market the product using the name. "Kleenex" and "Popsicle" are also trademarked, even though these are also commonly used by your average Joe to indicate the type of product rather than the particular brand. Having a trademark protects you against competitors who may try to name their product in order to confuse consumers in the marketplace.

    What makes this so interesting is that it's apparently the first attempt to trademark a scent by linking it to a product rather than an image or a name.

  • OK, so we can use cut grass smell on other stuff. But what happens if someone gets an obvious fragrance on an air freshener? What if they got the trademark for "new car" air freshener? Yes, it could be rejected on the grounds of prior art, but we know there are loopholes in the system. I could see if someone trademarked a perfume, that's original. But trademarking stuff that already exists can lead to abuse. What would happen if someone trademarked the smell of fruit into a food additive? Trix smell fruity, they may have to stop.
  • All in the name of world peace. Now I'll be able to sue stinky bastards for violation of trademark. Only problem is, I'll have to have smelly armpits for the trademark to remain vaid :{ Ah well, world peace is worth it.
  • Is that Bull Shit or Bill's shit? Better yet, they sould tradmark scentless poop, that way they could say they are the only software company whose "Shit Don't Stink"{tm}.
  • Rats, it's only a trademark. When I read the cover story, I was thinking:
    At last! I can patent the smell of body odor!
    Then I could sue everyone at the gym with BO. That would teach the bastards to shower.

    sigh, foiled again.

  • Day old grass (Score:3)

    by Zerth ( 26112 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @05:46AM (#1046357)
    I'm gonna trademark dayold cut grass and give them a run!

  • Stop the World! I want to get off! (Score:5)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @05:52AM (#1046360) Homepage
    Maybe there's a problem with someone trademarking the smell of freshly cut grass... Maybe it's wrong to patent a smell...

    What gets me is WHY IN GOD'S NAME would anyone want lawn-scented tennis balls in the first place? What the freak is the point of scented tennis balls? I mean, their default rubbery smell is just fine.

    I have to figure this out - bear with me. If I were an avid tennis player (and I'm and SO not!) I would tend to keep my tennis balls in my gym bag - along with socks, a towel, sneakers, whathaveyou. It would probably get pretty rank in there after a few days in the trunk..

    Maybe deodorant scented tannis balls wouldn't be such a bad idea - but grass? Why? The smell of grass does nothing to offset the smell of sweat and feet. Lemons maybe, perhaps 'Summer Meadow' or some other MegaMarketting BS... Possibly the ubiquitous PINE. But grass? I just don't get it.

    [rant=on]
    On a side note: I saw something in the super market the other day, that I found both fall-down-funny, and horrific at the same time.

    Vanilla-scented-candle-scented-air-freshening- spray! Think that through for a minute. A spray scented to smell like a candle, scented to smell like vanilla. My GF had to drag me out of the chemical isle, because I couldn't stop staring at this stupid thing...

    In retrospect, it was a great way to make a geek's head explode. It's just one of those things, like an endless loop or an infinite recursion - like telling a [insert ethnic group] to stand in the corner of the Oval Office...

    WHY?? Why make something that smells like something that smells like something else?? Why artifically scent something to smell like something that is artficially scented to smell like something natural?

    And isn't the point of an air-deodorizer to de-odorize the air? How can you de-odorize something by adding new odors to it?
    [rant=off]

    Sometimes I think people come up with these ideas on a bet. "Hey Joe, I bet you can't get people to buy tennis balls that smell like their LAWN!" "Oh yeah, Frank? I bet I can!!"
  • It's bad because the 'trademark' is on the product itself, not on any particular name or brand.

    The idea with trademarks is that you can have competition, as long as people aren't misled by products which claim to be brand X but aren't. If you buy Coca-Cola(tm) you know what you are getting.

    However, with a trademark on the smell, nobody else can make grass-smelling tennis balls. Not even if they call them something else and make it clear that they are a different manufacturer. The trademark laws are meant to protect consumers, but here it is consumers who are losing out due to lack of competition.

    It's funny how sensible practices like trademarks, patents and so on always seem to degenerate into 'monopoly for sale' schemes.
  • No problem. The formula is a trade secret, not a trademark or patent. Just don't call it Coke(TM) or Coca-Cola(TM).

  • Re:Trademark? (Score:3)

    by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @05:59AM (#1046368) Homepage Journal
    Your argument is that trademarks are for brands and slogans. Text. Given.

    What about logos? Obviously you can trademark them.

    Why? Company logos, names, slogans etc. that are trademark-able are unique identifying signatures of an individual, group, or corporation that that individual, group, or corporation should be entitled to protect.

    A textual trademark is a linguistic expression of a signature. It might be spoken, written, or translated into foreign languages. Likewise, a company logo is a visual expression of a signature. It could be drawn, photocopied, or made into an enormous sign. There is little argument that these two types of "signatures" should be able to be protected.

    If you think about this stuff in terms of a trademark-able signature, things really start making more sense. Tactile, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory signatures should be entitled for protectection just as much as visual and linguistic signatures are. Quite some years ago, courts finally gave into the auditory trademark issue and allowed trademark of signatures such as (HELLO YOU'RE ALL STUPID FOR MISSING THESE) the Intel sound and the godawful Nokia ring.

    Come up with a good reason why Nokia should be able to trademark some beeps and a perfume company shouldn't be able to trademark its scent and then we'll argue against the court's decision. This has been a long time coming.

    ~GoRK
  • No, and if you rest your coffe cup on a blotter and leave an ugly ring, you won't be sued by Lucent either. You're not selling your tennis ball, you're not passing it off as this company's, you're not interfering with their trademark. You can't trademark "the smell of pizza" for a pizza, because smelling of pizza is a general feature of pizza, not a distinctive feature of Fred's Pizza.

    Here's a a short checklist for Slashbots wanting to put up instances of "obviously ridiculous features of IP law" to make great jokes at the expense of those silly lawyers (who, miraculously, seem to earn good money for their moronic tweetings).

    1. Get the distinction between trademark, patent and copyright clear. If you're not sure that you've got the right one, shut up.

    2. If your example took you less than five minutes to cook up, chances are that it didn't get through the four or five stages of drafting that most legislation goes through, and the law doesn't say what you think it says. Shut up.

    3. If you example took you less than an hour to cook up, chances are that this point has already occurred to someone else, been litigated and decided by one of those moronic judges who make more genuinely tough decisions in a day than you lot make in a lifetime. The anomaly has been dealt with in precedent. Shut up.

    4. If your example is genuinely new (clue: it probably isn't), or if you're criticising the actual outcome of an actual case which is not about to be overturned on appeal (clue: you probably aren't), and you're aware of the actual facts of the case rather than a newspaper report hastily drafted by someone with newspapers to sell (clue: I'd bet good money you aren't), then post away. But remember that there may be legitimately held positions on the other side. Otherwise, shut up.

  • Sadly, along with patents, copyrights, English, trees and cockroaches, the act of being an unfunny, unoriginal, tired, desperately lame twat was invented a long time ago, by someone who wasn't you. So you can't even patent that.
  • Well, no actually this DOES mean that nobody could duplicate and sell a product featuring the particular "scent of fresh cut grass" on sports equipment or whatever scope their trademark covers. That's why this ruling is significant at all is it changed the old rules (where you could duplicate a scent for instance)

    I expect that many perfume companies will use this ruling to shove similar scent trademarks through which (personally considered) should be legal under current laws. Personally I don't really believe in trademarks at all, but I do think that governments should understand and abide by the laws they make. When courts give people the argument that sort of works out to: "oh you can't do that because it's never been done before" even though the law should encompass it really makes my stomach ache.

    Regarding the formula... The recipe to create such scent would have to be protected as a trade secret and would not be able to be trademarked as it is not a signature of any sort. The process of creating the scent (if sufficiently unique) could be patented for further protection.

    ~GoRK
  • I'm appending this to your post rather than a higher one because it;s the first reaonsable and correct one I've seen. Most of the other patent/trademark/IP whiners are too annoying to deserve this piece of advice -- all these people squealing about "it's so stupid, patenting this, that, the other" are committing the fallacy of assuming that all patents, merely because granted, are enforceable. The US Patents Office is not a court, and they cannot prejudge any future litigation. A patent gives you the right to sue someone -- it doesn't confer magical litigation powers (you have to pay my fee to get those). The cat exercising guy hasn't sued anyone since filing his patent, and would clearly get his ass handed to him if he did.

    So the reaction to something like the cat patent should be more like "Knobhead Wastes Money on Filing Unenforceable Patent, Film at 11". That's why the Amazon patent shocked everybody -- because a court upheld a patent which everyone had assumed to be bullshit.
  • ...and I'm talking with my lawyers now to decide how to pursue all those computer users out there that are using sweaty mice.

    ------
    IanO
  • >Now, unless they've actually trademarked "The smell of fresh cut grass" as a slogan, then the journalist who wrote this piece needs a clue. Trademarks are for brands and slogans

    You might actually read the article yourself. The journalist was reporting a ruling that in fact, a scent could be trademarked under European Union rules. (Apparently the Dutch originally allowed the scent trademark under their laws.) As the article notes, both Britain and the US have begun to allow scents to be trademarked. The US law reads "any word, name, symbol, or device ... used in commerce to identify and distinguish" one product from another. These rules may originally have meant only names and slogans, as you suggest, but for a very long time have included broader concepts such as shapes (e.g. Coca-Cola bottle), musical tones (AT Microsoft), and more recently, specific colors (e.g. Pantone, as you note). One article suggested that, at least under British law, scents could be trademarked as long as they could be represented by a phrase like "the scent of ...". in this case, "the scent of fresh cut grass".

    >I don't see how a scent could ever be patented (let alone trademarked).

    You're way behind the courts on this one. They're here, they're valid, and they're not going away. This ruling simply means that for the first time a single European Union country's trademarking of a scent is recognized across the EU. In other words, individual countries have been doing this for some time.
    ----
  • You have this totally wrong. Trademarks do not protect you from identical products, they protect you from "similar" *BRANDING*. Thus, I am allowed to make a product which cannot be distinguished from Coke Classic, but I'm probably not allowed to sell it (or anything else) in red cans with white ribbony-looking letters reading "Goka-Gola".

    The idea, apparently, is that they're getting a trademark on the use of a specific smell to identify their product. Thus, if you sell tennis balls which smell of fresh-cut grass, you may be creating "confusion" in customer minds. I'm not sure whether or not I buy this, but it's not like a patent in any way.
  • Dickhead. Yours is the millionth post with exactly the same stupid message. Why don't you think about it for one second? You have, on occasion, eaten an Apple. Apple has trademarked the apple. There is no conflict between these two statements because you are not a computer manufacturer. Neither are you a rival maker of scented tennis balls. For fucking crying out loud, I swear that Rob and Hemos simply post these stories when they want to see how many of the coveted moron demographic read slashdot. Why don't you click a banner and do something productive for someone, instead?

    Oh yeh, and your shitty pyramid scheme is nothing like distributed.net

  • >What gets me is WHY IN GOD'S NAME would anyone want lawn-scented tennis balls in the first place? What the freak is the point of scented tennis balls? I mean, their default rubbery smell is just fine.

    Well, the WHY for the manufacturer is clearly to distinguish their product among a great number of similar products, all roughly the same size, shape, material, and so forth.

    The WHY for the consumer is a bit murkier, as you suggest. Yes, it's a silly product.

    But the trademark situation is perfectly logical. Yes, trademarks even apply to silly, pointless products that nobody wants. Or would, in an ideal world.
    ----
  • No, he hasn't sued anyone. And while I wouldn't consider it a reasonable patent, nor likely to stand up in court, in today's market it kind of makes sense. The patent holder sells his own line of cat-decorated laser pointers under the brandname 'High-Tech Play Time'.. (you can buy the same pointer sans kitty stickers at the local Radio Shack) That 'You can sell my 'cat-exerciser' idea if I can incorporate your 'catnip-express' into my 'feline dreamhouse'' kind of lawsuit avoidance..

    I keep it as proof you can patent anything, no matter how moronic or obvious.. Even if you can't win a lawsuit based on it, you can sure as hell waste everyones time, money, and sanity.. For comparison, it resides next to the filing for the McCoy lubricator, which IMHO is a good example of a perfect patent..

  • Re:Hmm, good idea... (Score:3)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday May 26, 2000 @06:38AM (#1046391)
    > > So, if I patent the smell of horseshit, will Microsoft owe my a royalty
    > > for each of their press releases?
    >
    > No, you'd need to register the smell of bullshit. Products themselves might
    > fall under the protection of dogshit. There's a big difference you know.

    OK, kids, let's get our shit straight.

    Dogshit comes out of a dog's ass.
    Bullshit comes out of a bull's ass.
    So where does horseshit come from?

    Right. Gates and Balmer. I mean, one read of their performances during the antitrust trial, how can anyone not realize they're a pair of Grade-A horses' asses?

    Now if it's runny, slimy sheepshit you want, (as opposed to run-of-the-mill bullshit), try the goo spewing forth from the Freedom to Innovate Network [microsoft.com]. That's some serious shit.

    But whether it's dogshit(tm), bullshit(R), sheepshit(c), or horseshit(pat. pending), like the man said, there is a difference.

  • Sooner or later someone is going to use this freshly-mowed stench on astroturf, mark my words.
  • Sorry, due to my ingestion of Fajitas and Beer last night, I claim your patent is invalid due to prior (f)art.

    Incidentally, the sheer number of people responding to this story bitching about "patents" show less than Grade 1 reading comprehension. I haven't read the story yet (just loaded /. now), and even I know the synopsis says COPYRIGHT. Jeez, slow down a little folks, it's Friday!

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • Hmmm. Now how could one precisely define the 'smell of freshly mown grass'? I mean if I come out with Tennis Balls (no, this is not a sports injury!) with a smell that five people are inclined to call 'grassy' and other five people call 'soily' or 'herby' or ...
    Would I have to hire a professional smeller if I were dragged before court?

    What if someone comes and gets a trademark for 'Toast bread that tastes just like freshly toasted bread?' Would that stand a trial?

    I envision the players at the next Wimbledon sniffin' at each other's balls. :)

  • Once again, I'll have to invalidate your patent due to prior art. I can give you her phone# if you want to verify it :)

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • This is a good thing! Just think about it, now you can claim trademark infringement as an execuse to not cut your lawn!

    Woohoo!

    (ps - if anybody takes this seriously, then yikes!)

  • YAY! (Score:2)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
    I no longer have to mow the lawn! It's a copyright infringement! Chew on that for a bit, Dad.

    -------
    CAIMLAS

  • I hope that this trademark trend discourages companies from using artificial scents on various products.

    That's because I'm highly allergic to the various base chemicals that are used as a scent fixer, and I'd hate to be constantly sneezing and on the verge of nausia every time I try to play tennis or darts in a local bar...
  • No. But you won't be able to produce tennis balls, or perhaps other tennis equipment, or other sporting equipment (soccer balls, etc) that have the same smell. They are basically saying that the 'smell' is a trademark. It identifies their product.

    Sounds reasonable.

    Remember, they can't lay claim to all instances of the smell (like other companies do with words) unless it is already a major trademark, that the whole world recognizes (aka xerox)
  • the Pilot Pen versus Pilot PDA issue? one's a pen, one's an electronic organizer
    That's why Pilot didn't complain until they decided to produce an "electronic notepad" gizmo. It was a conventional paper notepad with a digitizer under it, IIRC. Not surprisingly, I can't find any reference to that ill-conceived idea today, but I doubt Palm wants to go through the hassle of switching back to the old name.
  • I can see it now... a rush to trademark all available scents at trademarkyourscent.com

    TOP TEN SCENTS NEEDING A TRADEMARK
    - warm chocolate chip cookies
    - that burning electronics smell when your computer/stereo/tv gets fried
    - the smell of gunpowder after you light a brick of firecrackers
    - gasoline
    - The scent that is added to Natural Gas so you can smell it (does that scent have a name??)
    - The smell of warm beer in a fraternity house basement
    - skunk
    - leather
    - popcorn
    - coffee
  • But I can reproduce grass smell by playing ball... In theory if I loan or sell those jeans then they get a cut of the profit ...
  • A trademark isn't really a monopoly; you can stop others from using your _name_ but not stop them from making competing (or even identical) products.

    Patents are designed to create a monopoly. However this monopoly should be only on the new technology which was invented. I was referring to the practice of patenting _existing_ practices - the host of software patents which involve taking an existing business method and putting it on the Web are like this.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close