Larping.org imports and resells foam arrows. Global Archery also sells foam arrows, and is suing for trademark infringement and patent infringement. According to this article, the trademark infringement claim is based on the name "Larp Arrow", which sounds pretty generic, but more importantly is actually only being used by some unrelated seller. The patent claim is based on patents dated after the company that made the arrows started making them, and Larping.org doesn't make them anyways, they only resell them. Larping.org launched a crowdfunding campaign to finance their legal defense, and Global Archery demanded that they shut it down, shut up, and pay them all the money raised so far.
A sane court system would be able to investigate and dismiss the IP claims quickly, before they forced the defendant to incur any significant costs. The US courts, however, are not a sane system, especially where intellectual property is concerned. It is a system where people believe, first, that if you don't spend a lot of money on lawyers, then the merits won't save you. And it's a system where defendants almost never get to recoup the money spent on lawyers.
So we get this. When patents appear in the news, it's always a mean plaintiff trying to bully a meritorious defendant out of a market, or extort a payout. This is very different from the stories our lawmakers hear about, which are about patents protecting virtuous inventors from theft by big companies--a scenario which, as far as news headlines are concerned, never ever happens.
No, the trademark claim is based on the defendant's deliberate use of Global Archery's "Archery Tag" trademark to market their own product.
Their use of that trademark is probably fine (you're allowed to compare your products to those of other firms), but it's not correct to suggest that Global Archery is somehow enforcing a trademark on all of "larping".
Indeed. I'd like to assume that people are smart enough to explicitly call out other companies and piss them off. Selling your imported arrows as "Better than Archery Tag" is just asking for trouble.
The actual mechanics where the man is getting sued for patent infringement is likely an unrelated lash-out by "Archery Tag". Archery Tag just saw this guy deliver the "first blow" since he was purchasing Google Ads explicitly using their trademark without permission.
Actually, I just read the lawsuit - the trademark infringement is over "Archery Tag". The ad in particular they have highlighted is a Google ad, where they say they are better than Archery Tag.
I know only what I've read in the article re:this case, but I don't see enough to know the merits.
In particular, if YOU import something, you are responsible for ensuring it doesn't violate a patent, as I understand it. (See: recent Dollar Shave Club lawsuit).
That the German company did this "first" is relevant for overturning the patent, but that doesn't invalidate the case until said patent is dead, regrettably.
I can't tell from this article what's going on with enough detail, so it may or not be egregious behavior from either party, or just a "reasonable" legal dispute.
If Global Archery is aware of prior art, they are engaging in malicious prosecution and are abusing the court system. They should be slapped with penalties.
The suit seems to be over the use of the "Archery Tag" trademark in advertising? That seems perfectly legal (article states it as well). Typical "we'll suebully you" case imo.
So how do you get these patents voided if there's clear evidence another company (the arrows he sells from Germany) produced something similar before? Pretty clear case of priors at least according to European patent law which is the only one I'm vaguely familiar with.
I think that would be awesome. You bully you pay a hefty price.
His claim that it will "end" LARP archery is disingenuous. It will pave the way for the owner of the patent to have a lock on the market for the foam arrows. He would either need a license or have to stop selling them, but presumable the patent owner would try and step in to fill the void (of the sellers that could no longer sell them, without a license).
It's also a company that has hired a lawyer who doesn't know how to spell. Apparently the interference is "long and twisted", or tortuous:
"As a result of Larping’s tortuous interference with Global’s contractual relationships, Global respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment against Larping in such an amount to be proven at trial, together with punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate, the costs of this action, and all other relief as this Court deems just and proper."
Doesn't seem that out of line to me according to [0]. Subsituting from definitions in [0] yields 'as a result of Larping's deceitfully indirect or morally crooked interference' || 'as a result of Larping's circuitous interference', etc.
A tort is a specific legal term. Tortious interference is a specific phrase used throughout the filing, and it has a very specific and well defined meaning in civil suits. This filing is a badly written, flawed and absurd lawsuit and it's bound for failure. I hope the defendant applies for and is awarded damages.
Holy crap, it's pretty obvious that under the first amendment that the guy can publicise he is getting sued! There are no grounds for a gag order, whatsoever.
Global Archery are bullies. I hope this action causes their sales to shrivel.
edit: actually, it looks like things are much, much worse for Global Archery. It appears that iDV filed a German patent in 2004 for much the same thing as Global Archery's patent. It's where the guy is importing his arrows from!
Something tells me that they suddenly have a far bigger problem than they original anticipated. That $150,000 legal budget? I hope they top it up - I think someone is about to challenge their patent.
Prior art COULD invalidate the patent. (remember that patents tend to have broad descriptions ("foam arrow!") and narrow specifics ("with a head in this shape, attached in this manner")
But invalidation that doesn't magically happen the moment prior art is found. Someone (Judge/USPTO) would have to rule that this IS prior art AND sufficient to invalidate the patent)
So even if the judge in this case decides this is prior art and kills the patent, this isn't "using the courts to bully a competitor out of business", but instead using the courts as legally correct. (sadly)
In recent history, we've seen a lot of cases where the courts trust and rely on the USPTO to rule correctly on patents, and the USPTO trusts and relies on the courts to test patents, so we end up with a lot of patents, a lot of cases, and a lot of lawyers getting paid.
I'd claim that you don't even need prior art for this stuff to not be enforceable patent. If specialist on the field thinks about shooting an arrow to human being and not injuring him/her, that technical solution they have is pretty obvious. That alone would be grounds to deny the patent at patent office.
Unfortunately you can sue with unenforceable patent. It's just that you lose if the other guy has enough money. But in many cases the other guy doesn't have the money.
I am not a lawyer, so please take this for no more than what it is: an amateur commenting on his opinion of the law, not legal advice which it would be illegal for me to give you.
If, indeed, foam arrows existed (and were publicly known, not some sort of trade secret) before the date that the patent was issued then that would make the patent invalid. There is a point in the legal process where the defendant is allowed to argue that the patent was invalid. Unfortunately, in many cases that point comes AFTER the defendant has already run out of money and been forced to concede the case.
Using the courts to bully a competitor out of business is perfectly legal. For instance, if the competitor is illegally selling a product that uses your validly patented invention, then putting them out of business (and/or requiring them to obtain a license for the patent) is exactly what the law requires. Your application of the word "bully" simply means "to demand something which I think is unfair". Now, if the patent is NOT valid, then the whole argument falls apart, but as I mentioned, that comes up at a later point in the legal process.
If the arrows were used or sold publicly earlier, they are (almost certainly) prior art. This doesn't necessarily mean the patent is invalid, though. Folks generalize excessively when discussing what a patent covers. You'd have to compare the patent's claims to the prior art arrows to decide if exactly what is claimed was done before.
A sane court system would be able to investigate and dismiss the IP claims quickly, before they forced the defendant to incur any significant costs. The US courts, however, are not a sane system, especially where intellectual property is concerned. It is a system where people believe, first, that if you don't spend a lot of money on lawyers, then the merits won't save you. And it's a system where defendants almost never get to recoup the money spent on lawyers.
So we get this. When patents appear in the news, it's always a mean plaintiff trying to bully a meritorious defendant out of a market, or extort a payout. This is very different from the stories our lawmakers hear about, which are about patents protecting virtuous inventors from theft by big companies--a scenario which, as far as news headlines are concerned, never ever happens.