Iron Grip Barbell vs. USA Sports (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Iron Grip is the assignee of U.S. Pat. 6,436,015 covers the weight plate with a triad of distributed grip positions. The United States manufactures the allegedly infringing plates. The district court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment that the patent was clear, finding:Combining conventional techniques would have been obvious even to a layperson. ” On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that:
The claimed invention is within the scope disclosed in the prior art, and the patentee has determined that the prior art does not teach from the present invention or that the three elongated grip weight plates are novel and anticipated compared to the prior art. We conclude that the claims clearly lack substantial evidence of appropriate secondary factors supporting patentability.
The finding of obviousness was affirmed.
Barbell companies have also been rejected on the trademark side of the PTO. John Welch tells us about a recent case (with no precedent) at the Ivanko Barbell Company.
in Ivanko, the TTAB refused to register the weight plate design (shown above) for two reasons: (i) functionality, and (ii) failure to establish distinctiveness. The applicant was essentially acknowledging functionality, which is bad practice when applying for a TTAB or design patent.
Consideration must be given to whether the applicant's design will function as a whole, as required by law. 15 USC § 1052(2)(5). Here, the evidence supports the examiner's position that the design is legally functional. Applicant touts the practical advantages of safety and ease of handling of its design.
The Board noted that because the design is functional, evidence of uniqueness is meaningless. However, to be on the safe side, the Board discussed applicant's argument that the design had acquired secondary meaning. The applicant presented research information that sought to show secondary implications related to the 7-hole weight plate.
The applicant has the burden of proving that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. . . . Ivanko Of survey respondents who know the weight of a barbell [sic] The plate in question (photo A-1) with all markings removed, 58.65% related to the appearance of the barbell weight plate shown by Ivanko, and a further 8.65% related to it [with] It's one company. ”
However, because the majority of study participants were upper-level employees of the barbell industry, the court could not determine whether potential consumers assigned secondary meaning to the design.
