Will I get in trouble for this?

[la-rene]

There have been similar discussions about Bath Bombs.

I would change the name - call them bubbling bars or something like that and you should be fine.

Not to argue, but changing the name would only protect you from a Trademark, not the patent. If you look at the percentages that they use in their trademarked recipe, they cover their bases. The way I see it, is there is only so much tweaking you can do in a recipe for bathbombs. It has to be about a 2:1 Ratio, correct?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't make them, in fact, I'm working on some fizzie foaming bath "bombs" too, but I don't think we should be surprised if we do get a C&D letter for making them at some point. Especially, if our products are successful. Though L's patent is for a fizzing foaming bath bomb that has an inner core that fizzes and an outer layer that foams. That is their "difference" I guess.

I for one, don't like L's products. I think most of them kinda stink. lol!

 

[The Efficacious Gentleman]

I actually hate L as a company after the UK arm gave money to an organisation that was using illegal activities to promote it's agenda.

 

[DeeAnna]

"...Sounds to me like the US Patents & Trademarks Offices are not doing their homework to see if the names are already in common use...."

That might have been true 100 years ago, but not so much anymore probably due to the sheer volume of applications. My understanding is that the applicant has to justify the appropriateness of the application and the USPTO staff may do some research on the matter, but it is mostly the burden of the public to respond to a pending trademark application. There is a period of time where people can comment or object. If no one responds in that time, the USPTO takes that to mean there is no public objection to the application. Problem is ... how does the public know so there is the opportunity to object? I think most trademarks are probably pretty reasonable, but obviously not always, as seen by the "soap log" and the "fire cider" kerfluffles.

 

[lsg]

Not to argue, but changing the name would only protect you from a Trademark, not the patent. If you look at the percentages that they use in their trademarked recipe, they cover their bases. The way I see it, is there is only so much tweaking you can do in a recipe for bathbombs. It has to be about a 2:1 Ratio, correct?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't make them, in fact, I'm working on some fizzie foaming bath "bombs" too, but I don't think we should be surprised if we do get a C&D letter for making them at some point. Especially, if our products are successful. Though L's patent is for a fizzing foaming bath bomb that has an inner core that fizzes and an outer layer that foams. That is their "difference" I guess.

I for one, don't like L's products. I think most of them kinda stink. lol!

There is the fact that people were making and selling bath bombs before Lush was even in existence as a business. I have been reading up on patent laws and this was one of the things that decides whether you are in violation or not.

 

[Lindy]

This is something the Guild should be getting involved with out of the USA. Members should lobby them to get them to go up against this application.

 

[lsg]

Lindy, I just sent an inquiry. Will let you know if I hear back.

This is the message I sent:
"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is the Handcrafted Soapmakers Guild protesting any of Lush's attempts for gaining patents to products such as bath fizzies?"[/FONT]




Here is the reply I received:

"I have a message sent out to our Trademark Attorney to investigate the issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Leigh O'Donnell
HSCG Executive Director"

 

[Lindy]

Awesome!

 

[hippiechic]

...looks like y'all gonna get some stuff cleared up this year...WTG

That's really awesome to clear it up now. Keep hand-crafted what it is and not allow folks creating start-ups to commercialize long known terms because they can't be somewhat creative and make-up their own name for it. Let me know if you need/want any help.

 

[Sweetlily321]

<3 this

 

[gurdeep]

That would be like stopping people selling bath bombs and hand made soap m&p or cp

 

[lsg]

More info this morning. I got another e-mail which stated that since bath fizzies is a generic or common term there is no patent on them in the United States. Lush did try to register a patent for bath bombs in 2000, but failed. Apparently whatever patent Lush has with the wording "Bath Fizzies" pertains to toys, games and playthings, not the cosmetic or soap industry in the U.S. The HSCG monitors the list of trademarks that are published for opposition every Tuesday.

I hope I correctly interpreted the e-mail. The blurb after the e-mail forbade copying, forwarding etc.

 

[la-rene]

More info this morning. I got another e-mail which stated that since bath fizzies is a generic or common term there is no patent on them in the United States. Lush did try to register a patent for bath bombs in 2000, but failed. Apparently whatever patent Lush has with the wording "Bath Fizzies" pertains to toys, games and playthings, not the cosmetic or soap industry in the U.S. The HSCG monitors the list of trademarks that are published for opposition every Tuesday.

I hope I correctly interpreted the e-mail. The blurb after the e-mail forbade copying, forwarding etc.

Patent or Trademark? Not trying to be a pita... truly interested in the outcome of this. I too sent an email to HCSG about the new L patent that has been out for review since Oct 2013 on a two layer foaming & fizzing bath bombs, but have heard nothing back yet.

This whole thing interested me when I found that L has a Patent application for Solid Lotion bars containing 16% to 76% cocoa butter from back in 2003.... not sure if that has been granted though, but, those amounts are what worries me about patents like this. I mean 16% to 76%? Can they have a wider spread?

Are others doing this as well? There must be.... I can only imagine coming up with, what I think is a new way to do... lets say whipped shampoo and then "success!!" I get Target interested, only to have Joe Foam have a patent that says anyone using 10-90% surfectant, 20-70% random oil in a whipped shampoo recipe is violating his patent. Seems wrong. It's too wide.

Though, it sounds like L has a patent for bath fizzies in the UK... I found an article where they were honored by the Queen and it says it is so. I haven't researched it to see if this is true or not.

 

[lsg]

Trade Mark info for Bath Fizzies-- G&S: Word Mark--Bath Fizzies in realtion to toys, games & playthings, namely collectible character figures.

There is no U. S. patent for bath fizzies.

 

[gurdeep]

If people like lush and the like het there way then the small manufacture might as well pack up their bags and call it a day government should level the playing field and help the small independent

 

[kasandrashy]

I have spoken with other soapers with national customer base who do not make bubble bars because it’s not possible to do without violating the patent in some way. I am not saying that it’s impossible but I am saying others have looked into and decided it wasn’t worth the risk.

 

[Primrose]

I have spoken with other soapers with national customer base who do not make bubble bars because it’s not possible to do without violating the patent in some way. I am not saying that it’s impossible but I am saying others have looked into and decided it wasn’t worth the risk.

Just pointing out, in case you didn't realise this is a thread from 2014 so the OP probably isn't even around anymore

 

[TheGecko]

I have spoken with other soapers with national customer base who do not make bubble bars because it’s not possible to do without violating the patent in some way. I am not saying that it’s impossible but I am saying others have looked into and decided it wasn’t worth the risk.

The patent is BS, the trademark is not. You can make all the 'bubble bars' you want, you just can't call them Bubble Bars.