Slashdot Mirror
Smell Of Fresh Cut Grass Trademarked
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... "
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
tcd004
Check out Jant RenoMargolis, 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.
henry [ w i r e t r a p . n e t ]
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
the and the 'sound of a modem connecting'
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
One of the first gases to be used in warfare, phosgene, smells like grass or hay in low concentrations. So if some country uses this, can we sue for patent-infringement?
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
the sound of a Harley and the 'sound of a modem connecting'
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Did they include a whiff of lawnmower gasoline as well?
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.
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
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
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
So, if I patent the smell of horseshit, will Microsoft owe my a royalty for each of their press releases?
numb
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
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 their balls smell like grass, what is the big deal?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
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....
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
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.
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
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I'm gonna trademark dayold cut grass and give them a run!
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!!"
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
No problem. The formula is a trade secret, not a trademark or patent. Just don't call it Coke(TM) or Coca-Cola(TM).
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
...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
------
Objects in Mirror are Losing!
>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
... 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".
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
>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.
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Oh yeh, and your shitty pyramid scheme is nothing like distributed.net
-- the most controversial site on the Web
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.
/. now), and even I know the synopsis says COPYRIGHT. Jeez, slow down a little folks, it's Friday!
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
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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!)
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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)
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 ...