RoyalSmokers disposable
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That is really, really disturbing, Ludo. You can understand our confusion, since the factories that produce our devices and liquids are shrouded in secrecy. Not a good situation.
I trust Janty. I don't trust the unknown sweat shop with the Rolex-ripoff Janty product. We do know the Chinese are skilled at copying patented and copyrighted products. But that needs to stop. Sic 'em.
You do understand how confusing all this is for e-smokers? That thing certainly looks like Janty's new Mini Fogger. Right down to the Nike swoosh symbol.
And what confidence does this give us about unbranded and untested e-liquid? You will help all of e-smoking if you stomp the copycat cockroach into oblivion.
Not at al speechless, I'm just not answering trolls. Some trolls are called "denker" on other forums, some trolls surf through anonymous.org
I don't trust trolls.
I don't trust trolls.
That stinks that they stole your picture Ludo. There's another e-cig company called Jaunty. I wonder how they got that name. They were using pictures that I took of my girlfriend e-smoking to advertise their products. Lousy .......s. Anyway, looks like the new ultra wasteful disposable has hit ebay at about 20 bucks after you factor in shipping.
Ludo,
I have taken a closer look. No doubt it looks just like your mini fogger and I am not denying that, but what exactly did they infringe upon?
Copyright infringement on a picture is one thing, making an ecigarette look like another is not.
If I produced an ecigarette that looked like a spitting image of the mini fogger, what law/patent/copyright am I breaking? is there some sort of *design patent* you have on the mini fogger that no one knows about?
You threaten people by saying you will sue them and will have your attorney's pursue legal action, then back nothing up, and all I am simply after is what the exact issue is? After someone confronts you on something and wants more information, you than start dodging questions, when you are the one that brought up legal action to begin with.
The picture? The device itself? The fact they have a cool little squiggle blue line on the device like the mini fogger?
-CaSH
Cash, I can't say it's the case here, but you bet design is copyrighted. All the time. Big Tobacco is now suing because their recognizable pack designs are being used for other products. That's a no-no. And it can't even be close. No red/white slash diagonally down a package (Marlboro, of course). No one can do that except the Marlboro copyright owner. That Janty fogger design is the first the world has seen of anything with a blue swirl insignia. It likely enjoyed instant protection the moment its picture was published.
In the case of the written word, which I've lived by all my life, it's not even necessary to file a copyright notice. My words are copyrighted the moment I write them and publish them. Any copying of them is violation of copyright and I would have the right to sue for such a violation. Nevertheless, feel free to copy and paste them in a response.
In the case of the written word, which I've lived by all my life, it's not even necessary to file a copyright notice. My words are copyrighted the moment I write them and publish them. Any copying of them is violation of copyright and I would have the right to sue for such a violation. Nevertheless, feel free to copy and paste them in a response.
LOL ... TB ... my man ...
The main issue I am having here is simple.
Janty threatens legal action (like they have done many many MANY times in the past)
I have no problem with them doing so, but they need to back the information when they make a public statement like that. In all honesty, legal action, etc... SHOULD NOT be brought publicly and should be kept in the private sector if it *indeed* infringed upon something.
Janty has listed patents, claims, etc... in the past, and not a SINGLE one (via name or patent #) I have looked for, has actually come out a patent in the end. They claim Chinese and USA patents, when Patent #'s cross referenced have zero backing atleast here in the USA.
I get tired of seeing Janty threaten legal action on everyone and their grandmother (INCLUDING MYSELF AT ONE POINT SEVERAL MONTHS BACK)
Its time for answers and flat out proof before their *legal threats* become a reality. Until them, its black smoke and mirrors ...
The main issue I am having here is simple.
Janty threatens legal action (like they have done many many MANY times in the past)
I have no problem with them doing so, but they need to back the information when they make a public statement like that. In all honesty, legal action, etc... SHOULD NOT be brought publicly and should be kept in the private sector if it *indeed* infringed upon something.
Janty has listed patents, claims, etc... in the past, and not a SINGLE one (via name or patent #) I have looked for, has actually come out a patent in the end. They claim Chinese and USA patents, when Patent #'s cross referenced have zero backing atleast here in the USA.
I get tired of seeing Janty threaten legal action on everyone and their grandmother (INCLUDING MYSELF AT ONE POINT SEVERAL MONTHS BACK)
Its time for answers and flat out proof before their *legal threats* become a reality. Until them, its black smoke and mirrors ...
Boy, has this thread gone over the edge.
The reasons that earlier post was deleted were: (1) Forum rules prohibit publishing private communications such as e-mail or PMs, and (2) the writer committed libel in his comments.
Alas, so did you (not you Cash, the new guy here) in the above post. It's slander when nasty accusations are spoken; libel when they're published. And press people soon learn the "red flag" words that trigger libel. Among them "crook, liar, cheat".
Plus, you threaten his business with your statements. That's a great basis for damage awards.
Shawn would do you a favor by removing your tirade. Think on it.
The reasons that earlier post was deleted were: (1) Forum rules prohibit publishing private communications such as e-mail or PMs, and (2) the writer committed libel in his comments.
Alas, so did you (not you Cash, the new guy here) in the above post. It's slander when nasty accusations are spoken; libel when they're published. And press people soon learn the "red flag" words that trigger libel. Among them "crook, liar, cheat".
Plus, you threaten his business with your statements. That's a great basis for damage awards.
Shawn would do you a favor by removing your tirade. Think on it.
Absolutely fascinating Pete - even better than reading the mods board yesterday .
.
This forum beats the TV hands down Got to be quick before the angels step in8-o
Got to be quick before the angels step in8-o
LOL, perhaps in the US. But we're talking about China here Bob.
There are both trademark and copyright issues regarding pack design. (It does have their logo on it, and the red & white slash, which are definitely going to be registered trademarks.)
But I can see why Bugiardo got irritated by Janty. Janty have also opened themselves up to libel - perhaps I read wrongly, but it looked to me like they have publically accused a competitor of patent infringement. But really, no-one's going to sue Janty, and no-one's going to sue Bugiardo over this.
It really isn't clear how you could possibly patent anything in any of Janty's products - where is the novelty requirement? The product in question has only existed for a short period. I would be very surprised if they have a full patent on anything novel in this particular device. A patent may be pending, but all this means is that when it is finally issued, Janty can then claim damages from them: this will literally take years to get issued, and probably at least that in the courts, if RoyalSmokers is still around. All you can do in the meantime is make scary lawyer noises.
BTW: If any of Janty's products actually are patented, then they have a legal requirement to write "Patent" on the product, and provide a reference number. I don't own any, but someone who does can confirm whether these patents actually exist quite easily.
But I can see why Bugiardo got irritated by Janty. Janty have also opened themselves up to libel - perhaps I read wrongly, but it looked to me like they have publically accused a competitor of patent infringement. But really, no-one's going to sue Janty, and no-one's going to sue Bugiardo over this.
It really isn't clear how you could possibly patent anything in any of Janty's products - where is the novelty requirement? The product in question has only existed for a short period. I would be very surprised if they have a full patent on anything novel in this particular device. A patent may be pending, but all this means is that when it is finally issued, Janty can then claim damages from them: this will literally take years to get issued, and probably at least that in the courts, if RoyalSmokers is still around. All you can do in the meantime is make scary lawyer noises.
BTW: If any of Janty's products actually are patented, then they have a legal requirement to write "Patent" on the product, and provide a reference number. I don't own any, but someone who does can confirm whether these patents actually exist quite easily.
It seems I have worded my origninal post wrong- "Looks like royalsmoker is making the Jantys new minifogger." Since RoyalSMoker is only a trading company and not a manufacturer. Perhaps the factory that is making Janty's kr808 with a blue swish on the side didn't understand Janty's exclusive copyright to that particular blue swish. Which just brings about my question: Ludo, do you still stand by the statement that Janty's has it's own exclusive factory that manufactures it's own products as stated in your sig line? Original Manufacturer and Supplier. Or are you saying the minifogger is not a kr808 at all.
- Status
Similar threads
