did anyone actually see the API knobs trademark patent?

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
1

1954U1

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
468
Location
Italy
JESSUP, MARYLAND - FEBRUARY 2008: Now approaching its 40th year of designing
and building high-end analog consoles and outboard processors, API Audio
announced that it has been granted a trademark for its signature
dual-concentric knob. Trademark for the knob, which graces every piece of
API gear, and is immediately recognizable as the "look" of API, was issued
on January 1, 2008. Just as API's trademark of its logo prevents other
companies from copying its design, API's trademark of its knob prevents
other companies from copying the knob's distinctive look.
The API knob has been in use by the company for decades, so why did API move
to protect it now? Explained Larry Droppa, president of API, "We secured the
trademark..
..
API's legal team proved to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the API knob deserved protection


I am curious, so, starting from the fact that it seems that the well known dual-concentric knobs design was indeed invented by Vemaline,
and assuming that the correct web site of  "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office" is www.uspto.gov,
I've tried to search in their database, with isd/1/1/2008 as issue date parameter, and then searched for api, knob..
but nothing appeared.
Also, nothing appears with "api" or "Automated Processes Inc" as "inventor name".

Am I missing something?
Do its possible to have a patent not publicly viewable?
 
Here's a PDF with all of the documentation on the trademark:

http://5zcwtw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pL_Oj_2cUUr4pT7CYscamDDaVrx2UDsrLMWDn67efcxATnQNI9A7EtIZMRmaxGDAxmomGUv2Vk0F1Xhffxr3Nn2H5OsDh5m-t/API-Knob-Trademark-77157198.pdf?download

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://cid-5fd99a59f6b5fb54.skydrive.live.com/embedrow.aspx/.Public/API-Knob-Trademark-77157198.pdf
 
The original link I posted has expired. Look at the pdf that Skylar posted. You can just search in TESS under "Automated Processes" to find the eight or nine trademarks they are claiming.

It is a "design form" trademark, like the original Coca-Cola bottle. The design form does not cover a single knob. They wouldn't have been able to trademark that as it was probably covered by a design patent belonging to another company, in this case Elco. You can't patent or trademark "prior art". People sometimes get away with it because of lack of due diligence on the part of the patent or trademark examiner, though. Then its up to the original owner to refute the claim.

I am suprised that they can claim trademarks on their own logo since the current company isn't even the original API. Trademark registrations have a significantly longer life than patents or design patents. The current API also seem to have subsumed the "Automated Processes" name, although I noticed they are not claiming it as a trademark. The current company, as I understand it, it about three generations removed from the original API.
 
Quite an interesting thread here.

Maybe some of you have not seen my store and knobs? This is a sticky in the BM.
http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=31736.msg385496#msg385496

This is the first time I have seen the trademark application. Did you all take notice of the testimonials? Everyone was a boiler-plate response stating "the shape, color and design". It is also quite clear that the "2-tier" design is specified.

These were all points I made to Larry Droppa when he contacted me to nicely "demand" that I stop selling the knobs. He was nice about it.

After his call, I contacted the company that actually owns the "design patent" on these. Their attorneys are investigating.

burdij said:
...
I am suprised that they can claim trademarks on their own logo since the current company isn't even the original API. Trademark registrations have a significantly longer life than patents or design patents. The current API also seem to have subsumed the "Automated Processes" name, although I noticed they are not claiming it as a trademark. The current company, as I understand it, it about three generations removed from the original API.
Click to expand...

Great point burdij. For the record, when Larry and I spoke, he eased his way into the knobs and talked about Ed's transformers and the other things I have going. He did say that they try as hard as possible to insure that if a customer buys a current 512c, it will sound exactly the same as a 512 preamp from the early '70's.

That statement told me how much he knows about the company he runs and their heritage.

Cheers, Jeff

 
Thanks for the links, very interesting!

"The mark consists of the product configuration of a two tier control knob"

"The mark has become distinctive of the goods/services, as demonstred by the attached evidence"

"The mark has become distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for
at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement"

So, all that was needed for issuing the trademark is the exclusive and continuous use of someone's else design, in a dual concentric form,  for at least 5 years..
Incredible.

Btw yes, the "attached evidences" with exactly the same "When I see.. I associate that particular control knob color and shape only with API.."
are really interesting too.



 
burdij said:
It is a "design form" trademark, like the original Coca-Cola bottle. The design form does not cover a single knob. They wouldn't have been able to trademark that as it was probably covered by a design patent belonging to another company, in this case Elco.
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the only trademark claim they're making here is on two stacked knobs.
I don't see any reference to a trademark on the "design form."

Design patents last 14–20 years. If the design has been used since 1968, then the design patent has been expired for a while now!

Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely for a fee at each renewal period.
 
Skylar said:
Jeff, when was the design patent filed?
Click to expand...
I am really not sure.

I do know what I was told by the company that bought Vemaline and all of their assets. They said this knob was created and added to Vemaline's catalog sometime in the 1950's. Maybe their rights to this have expired? We will see. We all know there was no API in the '50's.

In any case, in a nut shell, the current API stopped buying from the Vemaline company around 2000. They then proceeded to have their own extrusion molds made and started producing the knobs...or sourced them from Asia like everything else these days. Whatever.

Either way, it reminds me of the movie about the intermittent windshield wiper inventor dude and Ford.

US corporate greed at it's finest.
 
Well, as I understand US patent/trademark law:

No one has "rights" to the knob beyond the design patent, which has expired long, long ago.

 
Skylar said:
Well, as I understand US patent/trademark law:

No one has "rights" to the knob beyond the design patent, which has expired long, long ago.
Click to expand...
I asked Larry what the big deal was since I was not a manufacturer competing with them selling assembled mic pre's, compressors, eq's and such. I explained I was a parts provider for the DIY community or for someone doing a custom refurb job. He simply said "you can't sell those knobs".

I am no attorney. Far from it.

So who is in the right here??
 
Like I said, though, the original rights owner would have to bring a claim against any current infringers. If the original owner doesn't exist, they don't have the resources, or they forgot to renew their trademarks, then the new claimant can continue to use the mark. Where the new claimant might run into legal issues is if they try to go after another perceived infringer. I believe API has a perfectly valid claim on the two knob trademark. They do use that form a lot in their products. It is a little shabby, though, that the supporting documentation in their registration form tries to extend their trademark claim to the use of any knob of that form. Perhaps they think that "guilt by association" is some kind of legal principle. Like any copyright or trademark, their rights only extend to the actual form, image, or performance that they are registering. That is why they specify that they are not associating the form with a particular color scheme. This broadens their claim to knobs of this form with any color applied. Skylar - this registration is not a design patent, it is a design form trademark. The difference between it and a regular trademark is the same as the difference between a patent and a design patent. The "design" versions of either type can apply to three dimensional objects.

By the way, my legal advice is worth what you are paying for it.
 
Well, either way...i can't get the knob i need. Damnit!
I've been searching...a long while.

1/2" plain - aluminum - 1/4" shaft.



 
This seems to imply they have a trademark on the API knob look, but i could be wrong:

"In the pro audio world, the 'API knob' is analogous to the Coca-Cola bottle. Even with the API logo covered up, knowledgeable engineers recognize API gear by the knobs alone.

API's legal team proved to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the 'API knob' deserved protection, partly by submitting letters from users, dealers, and even two major competitors who testified to the knob's unmistakable connection to API. "With the trademark in place," added Droppa, "users can be assured of the integrity of our brand. The API look means the API sound, and the API sound continues to mean absolutely stunning audio."
 
burdij said:
Like I said, though, the original rights owner would have to bring a claim against any current infringers. If the original owner doesn't exist, they don't have the resources, or they forgot to renew their trademarks, then the new claimant can continue to use the mark. Where the new claimant might run into legal issues is if they try to go after another perceived infringer. I believe API has a perfectly valid claim on the two knob trademark. They do use that form a lot in their products. It is a little shabby, though, that the supporting documentation in their registration form tries to extend their trademark claim to the use of any knob of that form. Perhaps they think that "guilt by association" is some kind of legal principle. Like any copyright or trademark, their rights only extend to the actual form, image, or performance that they are registering. That is why they specify that they are not associating the form with a particular color scheme. This broadens their claim to knobs of this form with any color applied. Skylar - this registration is not a design patent, it is a design form trademark. The difference between it and a regular trademark is the same as the difference between a patent and a design patent. The "design" versions of either type can apply to three dimensional objects.

By the way, my legal advice is worth what you are paying for it.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is...the trademark doc only claims the configuration of the knobs not the form.
But maybe "configuration" is a term that the USPTO recognizes as meaning form/shape/design/etc.
???

I have not been able to find any information on "design form" being a type of trademark.
There are "trade dress" trademarks under which the concept of trademarking a knob would likely fall.
The trademark in question, however, does not indicate which type of trademark it is.
My research indicates there are 5 categories of trademarks:
▪Trademarks
▪Service Marks
▪Certification Marks
▪Collective Marks
▪Trade Dress


Still, I would think that a more elaborate drawing or drawings would be necessary to register a 3D object (like a knob) as a trademark.
 
Btw its funny how, on pag 24 of pdf,
USPTO assigned the search codes:

Design search codes assigned to the referenced serial number are listed below.

DESIGN SEARCH CODES:
14.03.05 - Door hardware (knockers, knobs, etc.)
14.03.05 - Handles (door)

in http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/dsc_14.htm#14  :
14.03.05:    Door handles, door knobs, window handles, hinges, door knockers
 
Skylar said:
What I'm saying is...the trademark doc only claims the configuration of the knobs not the form.
But maybe "configuration" is a term that the USPTO recognizes as meaning form/shape/design/etc.
???

I have not been able to find any information on "design form" being a type of trademark.
There are "trade dress" trademarks under which the concept of trademarking a knob would likely fall.
The trademark in question, however, does not indicate which type of trademark it is.
My research indicates there are 5 categories of trademarks:
▪Trademarks
▪Service Marks
▪Certification Marks
▪Collective Marks
▪Trade Dress


Still, I would think that a more elaborate drawing or drawings would be necessary to register a 3D object (like a knob) as a trademark.
Click to expand...
If you take the literal meaning of the words as written, "THE MARK CONSISTS OF THE PRODUCT CONFIGURATION  OF A TWO TIER CONTROL KNOB", then every pro audio manufacturer who uses a dual concentric knob configuration of any shape or design is in violation of API's trademark.

Also, it states that "Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark". But every testimonial letter says "the control knob color and...". This is quite contradictive in my opinion. BTW, my opinion probably means absolute jack sh!t  ::) ::) ::) ::)
 

Similar threads

ciscan.81
FIRST DIY BUILDS: JLM BAs & 1290 Complete!
Replies
7
Views
8K
desol
desol

Latest posts

Back
Top