• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Have JOBO's patents in the meantime expired or are we actually dealing with product pirates ?

Beverly Hills said:
I found it on the net some weeks before. The seller is located in china. Perhaps there is a Joint Venture with JOBO?
Click to expand...

Is the seller also the manufacturer and also in located only in China? If so, and even assuming there is a case against them in Western courts for want of a better phrase, I wonder what the chances of a successful prosecution might be?

Fairly low I'd have thought

pentaxuser
 
Duceman said:
What patents?
Click to expand...

U.S. Patent for Tempering arrangement for containers Patent (Patent # 4,410,034 issued October 18, 1983) - Justia Patents Search

A tempering arrangement for containers, particularly for bottles with photo-developing chemicals, has a tank for accommodating a tempering bath and having an opening for inseting a container, an abutment provided in the tank and engageable with the container in an end position of the latter...
patents.justia.com

There may be others, like design patent on the shape/appearance and I didn't bother looking since nobody else, except @wiltw, seems to want to do their homework.

BTW, what @beemermark describes has been true since the beginning of the U.S. Patent agency, and is stated in a lot of documentation throughout the nineteeth century when there was a huge interest/upsurgence in inventing and patenting of inventions.

The ease of "stealing" also depends on the type of patent. Design patents are much more easily "violated" than a utility patent.
 
Last edited:
And regarding trademark:

JOBO Trademark - Serial Number 86083716 :: Justia Trademarks

Eye glasses; Optical glasses; Sun glasses
trademarks.justia.com

JOBO Trademark Application of Joseph L. Bonamassa - Serial Number 90279922 :: Justia Trademarks

Musical sound recordings; musical video recordings; downloadable musical sound recordings; downloadable video recordings featuring music; pre-recorded phonographic vinyl records, DVDs, compact discs, downloadable podcasts all featuring music, interviews, and concerts. Internet streaming of audio...
trademarks.justia.com


JOBO Trademark - Serial Number 90279922 - Furm

JOBO is a trademark filed on Tuesday, October 27, 2020 in the Computer & Software Products & Electrical & Scientific Products, Communication Services, and Education & Entertainment Services categories.
alter.com

JOBO Trademark (USPTO Serial 88545971) – Li,Rui | USPTO Record | TrademarkElite

JOBO Trademark (USPTO Serial 88545971) – Li,Rui | USPTO Record | TrademarkElite Status: Abandoned - Office Action Response Not Filed or Filed Late. Classes: Fur...
www.trademarkelite.com


There are many "Jobo" trademarks.

There may be patents/trademarks in other countries, but as I mentioned earlier... not searched by me...
 
Last edited:

U.S. Pat. No. 4,410,034, filed in 1981, expired in 2001. Has been a part of the public domain for more than two decades now.
 
Duceman said:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,410,034, filed in 1981, expired in 2001. Has been a part of the public domain for more than two decades now.
Click to expand...

Well there y'go (not you, @Duceman)...

Just like the others (which I shall not cite individually and will leave scrolling through the list to anyone really interested):

Rainer Bernhardt Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search

USPTO patent applications submitted by and patents granted to Rainer Bernhardt
patents.justia.com

Walter Kremer Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search

USPTO patent applications submitted by and patents granted to Walter Kremer
patents.justia.com
 

Unless you could show me where in the OP's image you can find anyone using the JOBO trademark that you've identified above, what you posted is of little relevance, other than you're just as confused about trademarks as the OP.
 
Duceman said:
Unless you could show me where in the OP's image you can find anyone using the JOBO trademark that you've identified above, what you posted is of little relevance, other than you're just as confused about trademarks as the OP.
Click to expand...

Not confused... just demonstrating that there is not a single "Jobo" trademark... there are and have been many Jobo trademarks.
 
Last edited:
It truly astounds me the number of armchair intellectual property "attorneys" we have here who haven't the first clue about intellectual property, whether that be patents, trademarks or copyrights.
 
Last edited:
Duceman said:
It truly astounds me the number of armchair intellectual property attorneys we have here who haven't the first clue about intellectual property, whether that be patents, trademarks or copyrights.
Click to expand...

Then teach us; correct the erroneous knowledge, as you did when you clarified the patent status in post 29. From your comment, cited above, it is not clear to whom you are refering. Are you an IP attorney?

It truly astounds me the number of people on the internet we have who hide behind their keyboard being grumpy critics yet haven't demonstrated their, allegedly, superior knowledge. It truly astounds me the number of folks who start threads like this, and the number of folks who jump all over it, yet not willing to do basic homework.

If that's you point, then I quite agree; happens too often.

Not sure about others, but I'm willing to learn whatever I might not know.
 
Last edited:
BrianShaw said:
Then teach us; correct the erroneous knowledge, as you did when you clarified the patent status in post 29. From your comment, ctied, it is not clear to whom you are refering.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that in these parts. Nothing but a waste of time.
 
Duceman said:
Been there, done that in these parts. Nothing but a waste of time.
Click to expand...

OK... I understand. Knowlege, especially on the internet, can often be somewhat transitory. Some people hear and understand correct/corrected information but then they disappear and someone else who doesn't pops up with a same/similar discussion. But snark is equally a waste of time.
 
Duceman said:
^-- Pot calling kettle black.
Click to expand...

OK... you can have the last word. At this point, it seems that your intent is to insult me via inuendo and cryptic comments rather that address any real issue; You haven't made your point clear. I ask again... are you an IP attorney (sincere question, not snark)? Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

What is this "prosecution" you speak of?
Patent and trademark infringement grounds a civil case - you have to sue someone, and the cost of doing that is on you.
If you win, you might get some of that cost back.
I'm not a patent "attorney", but as a retired barrister and solicitor, I knew enough about when to refer people to those who are.
 

Robert Kearns - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

THEY MADE A MOVIE ABOUT THIS. INTERMITTENT WINDSHIELD WIPERS! Genius!
 
MattKing said:
I'm not a patent "attorney", but as a retired barrister and solicitor, I knew enough about when to refer people to those who are.
Click to expand...

I've gone back to edit my post, as I was not referring to actual attorneys... just those who think they are.
 
Piracy is abundant in Chinese knockoff products, and, illegal or not, the laws are almost impossible to enforce due to the sheer scale of the problem. The two biggest big box chains in this country would go broke in six months if patent and labeling laws were actually enforced, probably many other retail sellers too. It's an epidemic, and rife on the web.

Expired patent or not, does not equate to misappropriating a known brand name and attaching it to a knockoff product. That's just plain counterfeiting, likewise an epidemic these days. And there's nothing big enough in scale in darkroom products to even tempt a lawyer to go to bat for you. It's peanuts compared to the staggering volume of violations in other sectors, which don't get defended either, but sometimes do get interdicted, import-wise, just to reappear labeled as something else. Only the consumer holds the real keys to the problem.

But in this instance, I did not see any alleged Jobo label on the products, or any claim to represent Jobo, but just generic replacements of probably inferior quality. Not much different than buying a generic "Technika-style" lensboard which doesn't claim to actually be made by Linhof.
 
Last edited:
The West sent as many manufacturing jobs as possible to China. Now we (the US) are outraged at China.

At the same time people line up to buy junk at Walmart.

Jobo is the original, IMHO, best systematic approach to small to medium size darkroom processing equipment.

One really needs nothing more than a Jobo 1520 tank a couple of reels and a thermometer to process anything. A simple water bath to warm color chemistry. Whatever you buy can be used for a lifetime.
 
DREW WILEY said:
generic replacements of probably inferior quality
Click to expand...

I have two imitation Jobo items. One is the 4x5 reel - which is absolutely fine. I got it for $16. I don't know why it was that price - it shortly thereafter went up to $45. At $20 less than the genuine Jobo reel, it'd make more sense to buy the Jobo one. But, like I said, the one I have is absolutely fine.

The other thing I have is a large tank that I bought for the centre. Mine (I only have one) is crumbling, and this tank was similarly bizarrely cheap when I bought it. This thing fits together with the genuine Jobo stuff but is just enough off to make snapping the lid on difficult. So I'd say inferior to Jobo. However, if you don't mix and match with Jobo stuff, it clips together well on its own. And the plastic seems to be identical to that used by Jobo.

Neither of these things claimed to be by Jobo, but they did list as "for Jobo".
 
I'm amazed at how long my Jobo hand tank components have lasted without developing plastic fatigue or cracks. But all my actual rotary development gear is more industrial quality - much better made than even Jobo. I've been directly involved with German engineers in equipment development (non-photo), and can attest to the fact they sometimes go to great lengths to optimize quality in a manner no secondary market manufacturer would.
 
Well: I am an intellectual property litigator. Patents protect processes. Trademarks protect against confusion in the marketplace.

This is a classic trademark infringement. The particular claim is not for an infringement of a logo, or trade name. Rather, it is an infringement of what is called “trade dress,” where a competitor copies the look and feel of a product in hopes of confusing buyers to assume that its product is somehow associated with the copied product.

This would be a rather simple trade dress case to prove. The copycat has used the same design, the same plastic, the same color scheme, similar typeface and layout, as the JOBO tank system. Trademark law provides the remedy, if Jobo’s owners want to protect their IP.
 

So if they changed the "trade dress" to not resemble the Jobo line, I would assume it would be acceptable, for lack of a better term, to market it as "jobo compatible"?
 
I would guess, due to reported unassuming FUNTIONALITY, that JOBO probably does not care much. If anything this might be driving new customers to them. I looked at this offer some couple of years ago when going for the JOBO system, and could not find much good about it, so skipped it altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register