Top Cat helps Dibble nab Copy Cats

Top Cat helps Dibble nab Copy Cats

It’s news that could make Amazon the most tip top Top Cat among toy and game designers, inventors and parents worldwide.  

The retailer has announced the establishment of a Counterfeit Crimes Unit that will be tasked with bringing copycats to justice.   The Counterfeit Crimes Unit is composed of former federal prosecutors, data analysts and investigators and will be charged with bringing sellers that break not only law, but Amazon’s policies, to justice.

In their recent press release Amazon say it’s “new, global team is dedicated to investigating, finding, and launching legal action and criminal referrals against counterfeiters.”

A joint report published in 2019 by the OECD and EUIPO suggests that trade in counterfeit and pirated goods accounts for 3.3% of world trade and is steadily rising. In the UK alone, this costs the economy billions of pounds each year and many of the sales are made through online outlets.

Of counterfeit items seized in 2016, footwear was the most prevalent making up 22% of goods with toys slightly more common than jewellery and pharmaceuticals at 3%.  This may not sound much, but it equates to millions of counterfeits, and who knows how many of these slip through the net and go unnoticed?

Of course, in the toy and game industry, it’s not just counterfeits that are a problem, but lookalikes too.  Sometimes a product is so obviously a copy that the owner of the original work can enforce its intellectual property rights, and thereby get the lookalike product off the shelves, and even some recompense for lost sales.  Just recently, Spin Master Corp have won record damages worth 15.5 million renminbi (£1,765,680.00) in the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court against a Chinese company that was making copies of its Bakugan children’s toys.

In other cases, however, it’s not so clear cut.  The manufacturers of lookalike products are ingenious when it comes to making small changes that are often indiscernible to consumers, but nevertheless enough to discourage legal action against them.  And the manufacturers of genuine products are often resigned to having their toys and games knocked off because they know the law doesn’t always help them as much as it should.

If there are weaknesses in your intellectual property protection, copycats will find it.  When it comes to intellectual property, any copycat can avoid trade mark infringement by simply adopting a different name; most toys and games are not patentable; and so that only leaves designs and copyright.  Design registration is hopelessly under used by businesses (and often badly used), and copyright requires proof of copying.  So, many businesses leave themselves horribly exposed and at the mercy of copycats.

But it isn’t just sales that get hit.  Reputations do too.  Many consumers simply do not realise they bought a fake.  Even if they do, they think it must be the same product, simply wearing different clothes.  Copycat products are often inferior quality and often fail to meet safety standards, but consumers may not realise this and associate poor quality with the genuine article.

Last month, TIE reported that they had bought nearly 200 toys from across four well-known websites. They then checked them all for compliance against EU safety standards. They found that a shocking 97% of the toys were non-compliant with EU law and 76% of those tested were unsafe for children. This echoes the findings of an earlier study by the British Toy and Hobby Association which found 58% of toys that they assessed were illegal to sell in the UK as they failed to meet safety regulations and 22% had serious safety failures “which could cause serious injury or death to a child”.

Tougher action by internet giants like Amazon will be welcomed by many. Not only should the dedicated Counterfeit Crimes Unit go a long way to stopping copycats riding on the coat tails of others and taking money from the pockets of designers and inventors, but it’s a much needed step in the right direction for helping to protect the reputations of businesses and the safety of children.

But there’s still more that can be done. There is an urgent need to stop lookalikes too.  This is why we’ve teamed up with Mojo Nation, as well as designers and retailers, to create a Code of Conduct for the toy and game industry.  The goal is to discourage the manufacture, stocking and sale of fake toys and games and to make it easier for consumers to spot and avoid fakes.  We believe we can achieve the former by achieving the latter.  Of course, we need the support and goodwill of the industry – but, judging by the feedback we have had so far, we have that in abundance. 

We plan to use a joined up approach, with everyone represented, in a forum made up of retail buyers, designers and heads of R&D. Under the Code, manufacturers will agree not to create copycat products and retailers will agree not to stock clear copycat products.  Our vision is of a pioneering industry that promotes a fair and safety conscious trading environment that recognises and rewards the intellectual investment of toy and game creators, even where the law may be too blunt an instrument to be of much help. 

“Oh, Officer Dibble….”

For more information please contact Victor Caddy, Trade Mark Attorney and Director on +44 (0)20 3146 7888 or email victor.caddy@wynne-jones.com.  

Related News

Much Ado About Nothing
news

Much Ado About Nothing

For a long time, a source of tension among UK trade mark and design attorneys was the fact that the UK was one of the few EU member states to abide by a decision to allow attorneys from any European Economic Area country to represent clients in proceedings before any national office of an EU member state.  With this in mind, one of the ironies of Brexit is that, from 1st January 2021, UK trade mark and design attorneys will (in general – please see below for a super-important exception!) lose the right to represent clients before the EU IPO

The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession
news

The impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the Patent Profession

Matthew Veale discusses the impact of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on the patent profession.

Messi scores in injury time…..
news

Messi scores in injury time…..

After nine-years (even Sir Alex Ferguson would have struggled to justify that), six time Ballon d’Or winner, Lionel Messi, has won a legal battle to register his name as a trade mark.

UK IPO announces temporary fee changes
news

UK IPO announces temporary fee changes

The UKIPO has temporarily reduced or removed certain fees associated with patents, trade marks and registered designs until 31 March 2021.

Warning Notice – Scam Payment Letters
news

Warning Notice – Scam Payment Letters

Have you received a letter out-of-the-blue recently from an unfamiliar agency asking you to pay a fee to register your European Patent application? Look out for the scam letters that look official, but aren't. 

UK Supreme Court judgment: Regeneron v Kymab
news

UK Supreme Court judgment: Regeneron v Kymab

On 24 June 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd [2020] UKSC 27 in a dispute that has been rumbling on for seven years. It was good news for Kymab and bad news for Regeneron, which saw two of its patents invalidated. For the rest of us, it’s an important case which includes key rulings on insufficiency.

news

Coronavirus - UK IPO, EPO and EU IPO extensions and support

A simple overview of the current status from IPOs. Last updated 18th May 2020. 

Is it unethical to patent?
news

Is it unethical to patent?

The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted many companies to invest time and effort in developing technology that is aimed at helping care for, test, or treat people suffering from the disease. In normal times, these might be considered normal commercial activities and would be considered for patenting without a second thought. However, the fact that these developments are typically not being motivated by pure commercial gain, but by a desire to do something for the public good causes many companies to question whether or not they should seeks patents or any other form of intellectual property protection.

aipex logo aipex logo aipex logo