Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NDMstang65" data-source="post: 6226555" data-attributes="member: 544576">Should have been one and the same patents and are one in the same are two completely different stories. The courts will see two different appearances (As one is a 4 leg, and one is a 6 leg which in an appearance patent is obviously different in appearance which is why there are two separate patents) as well as two unique patent numbers that are different. You may own the 4 spoke appearance, which is not any concern of ours; have fun with it. You do not own the 6 spoke appearance. (D451499 is different than D455733, the first of which you do not own because it is a different patent number and a different design than the second of which, you may very well own D455733 and I applaud you for purchasing it, however they are different patents and that is how they are filed) The "Grandfathering" angle that you may attempt to use is great the only problem with that is that grandfathering of any intellectual property is only taken into account if one used a design prior to the design being filed and patented (Which your company wasn't even a thought in your mind when that took place). After which you could only hold a license to use it. However, when one sells a patent they sell the original patent that was filed, not the licensing or agreements that the original patent holder agreed to. So, if it does go back to the original state of the patent that it was issued in once the patent was sold...that means you have to get licensing from the new owner of the intellectual property in order to use it without having legal issues. Because, It is two unique and separate patent numbers, Two unique and separate appearances.Regards,</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list