As an attorney who practices outside of intellectual property law - but who loves and studied the topic in law school - I greatly appreciate the effort you put into this content. Thank you!
Just seems so crazy that they don't just drop the name to kill the head ache. Balance sounds nice but not so amazing that its worth dumping legal fees into.
There are several discs that have the same name that are PDGA approved and are made by different companies. Whether they are on the market at the same time is difficult to say. I.e. Disc mold: Apollo Manufacturers: Wham-O (approved 1997); Alfa Disc (approved 2021) Disc mold: Falcon Manufacturers: lightning discs (approved 1987); millennium discs (approved 2019) Disc mold: lockdown Manufacturers: Doomsday (approved 2023); Guru (approved 2021) Discs mold: Lex Manufacturers: UB Disc (approved 2014); Disc king (approved 2016) In short: there doesn't seem to be a specific rule by the PDGA that discs have to use unique names that have not been approved already.
So MVP files their Intent to Use and begins work to develop the disc. What was the point of the Intent to Use if someone (Essential) could just scoop the name while MVP was doing their development work? What should MVP have done differently to protect their name, as based on this it seems like they went through the correct steps to protect themselves?
They could of started selling the disc in various ways, to show its being sold and used, then file for the trademark. Having a use case example goes a long way in court. Mvp has the edge for filing the patent application, however, Essential has sold discs called the Balance and has commerce with it, and could win this based on that alone.
I believe that Essential did not scoop anything. I think they used the name years before MVP (just no TM filing, which is common). MVP might have researched the name and approached Essential about acquiring rights to it.
@@martyjenkins3631 Per the PDGA website, Essential's disc was approved May 27, 2024. MVP applied for trademark December 14, 2023. While neither of those facts tells us when Essential's disc began production (which could theoretically have been years before they sought PDGA approval), it seems likely that Essential and MVP both landed on the name Balance independently and at around the same time.
@@martyjenkins3631 They have the patent filing on their side. They did what any smart business would do and do things legally and not cut corners. Mvp has more money to throw at this, and has a more legal claim to that name, regardless if Essential sold 14 discs to customers. Essential is going to find out that fighting a patent/Ip suit for 1 disc is going to hurt them more than help. The legal fees theyll lose fighting it far outwieghs the disc sales for that 1 disc. Mvp wins this. Its not even a hard thought to make.
As someone who commented in detail on your previous video on this, I think you pretty much summed it up, except for the part where there are 2 balance discs flying in the sky. And I think it would be fun to trademark zone for S&G's of course.
I'm not saying this is what occurred, but if an organization decided to be sketchy, could they peruse the list of intent to use trademarks and specifically target those with the intention to force legal action and potentially get a payout? If so, what's the point of intent to use at all?
Disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer and am simply going off logic here which sadly often doesn't apply to legal processes. In that situation, my guess (or perhaps just hope) would be that if it makes it to court, the company trying to snipe the names from trademark applications would lose when their records show there was no development or consideration of using the name until after the applications were submitted. To your other question, the purpose of filing intent to use is probably mainly for situations where two companies submit trademark applications for the same or sufficiently similar name and use. In this situation, imo, the earlier intent to use application date would take priority for approval.
One of the nice things about being an artist (of any type, including author or writer) is you get to learn copyright and trademark law simply by virtue of the industry we are in. And so as soon as this came out, my first thought was the fact that a trademark does not have to be registered in order to be enforceable. Registration certainly helps, but if you can prove your trademark was there first, you stand an overwhelming chance of beating all but the largest multi-billion dollar household name corporations. If the infringing entity isn't a household name, then they almost certainly lose on the premise that a trademark in use is protectable in the US whether or not it is registered. It really does help small businesses in all but the most extreme cases.
Does filing an intent to use application out you as planning to develop a product and put you at risk for someone else to make a product quicker than you? When would be the best time in the process to submit a trademark application to minimize risk?
Frankly they probably could have just stamped a 2 on all their existing discs and not said anything at all. Make Balance 2 for a year and then filed a trademark for Balance 2. They might have caught some flack from the other company, but due to their size I would bet there is very little chance anyone would do anything
I realy love these videos! It satisfies my brains love for putting pieces in place. And this story in particular, because some giant company try to stomp on the little guy and faild.
Disc golf disc manufacturing is such a small and niche area that it apparently isn't necessary nor is it fiscally sound to get a trademark protection over every disc a company manufactures, especially considering that they may go out of production in as short of time as one year, and that seems pretty stupid to trademark a disc name that isn't even going to get a full production run like the Ace Race 2011 disc which didn't even go into production because the feedback from the Ace Race is that people didn't like it enough even though it is actually an awesome disc. Ace Race is in fact one of the only words that Discraft has trademarked in addition to the words Discraft and Buzzz. Thus far it's been very gentlemanly that these has thus far been no need to trademark all your disc names, even innova only has their most popular most generic disc names trademarked such as beast, boss, valkyrie, wraith, and leopard. Gateway doesn't have any of their disc names trademarked not Wizard, spell, journey, spirit, spell, demon, NOTHING. It makes sense for certain industries to trademark their product names, unique company features like the exact shade of color associated with the product, logos, slogans, etc, because of how much competition there is and how intense or cutthroat that competition is. We already have the pdga to determine what names are already in use and thus off limits. I don't think that disc golf needs to go down the extreme legal protection route where you have to have a registered trademark over every disc
I posted below the PDGA's stance on disc names and etc. Unfortunately relying on good faith will only get so far and trademarks are a necessary evil to an extent. The PDGA doesn't referee name conflicts and expects the affected manufacturers to resolve naming issues before a new disc is approved. Submitted equipment may not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of another manufacturer regarding any previously approved equipment. The PDGA does not arbitrate such name or design disputes and expects the affected manufacturers to resolve any potential issues before new equipment can be approved. - Per the PDGA Technical Standards.
You CANNOT prove to me Chad and Brad are in it for profit. They way they explain things and how they listen and the way they change and update things based on user feedback and then go above and beyond at the same time. The way they really get into the minute details for the sake of consistency. Not a chance. Those bros love the sport
If I remember correctly, Clash originally had the mold named “Honey” when they released prototypes. But then ran into to this exact problem with Essential Discs so they had to rename it to Wild Honey.
For most companies having to change the name isn’t that big of a deal because they stamp the name onto the disc, but with mvp they emboss the name of the disc on the overmold. For them it’s probably expensive to retool the overmold portion of a disc if another company beats them to market with a name. Considering the high cost to make new molds in general, it’s a major setback with manufacturing costs and loss of time in production. I see why mvp would try and protect themselves against such a setback.
It’s hilarious to me how good this channel has been eating the past year. Here’s to hoping for a 2025 with less disc golf dot Law videos 😅 Love your stuff, keep it up.
The idea that these disc companies can even trademark the names of their discs is just stupid to me. Am I not supposed to be able to tell the difference between an MVP balance and an essential disc balance? No one cares what you call the dumb thing. It's how they fly. Prodigy is the only one that has a decent naming scheme.
I thought that if the trademark was approved they would be able to enforce it from the date of filing? Meaning that essential discs would be in the wrong since they released and developed it after the date of registration, which is why it was important
How much does the "court of public opinion" apply here? From what I have seen, most disc golfers have never heard of Essential Discs before this situation (perhaps fortuitous for Essential that this happened, honestly), and most would probably be more aware of MVP's use of Balance than ED's. If MVP was not first to use it in commerce, but still held the crown from a "recognition" perspective, how could that change a potential ruling?
13:23 If a mf is spending 7 mil in general, I'm sure he/she has the relevancy and influence to be alright. That isn't hell. If I lose $500 i literally might die. lmao
Once upon a time disc golf manufacturers just used common sense and didn't try taking names that were out there... No longer is such the case with the amount of money floating around.
I think my only issue with what you’ve stated here is the way you harped a lot on MVPs use of the word “register(ed)” which was more than likely a disconnect between the public relations person who wrote the statements, and their knowledge of the process and use of terminology. Based on the entire statement as a whole, it’s clear they know that it has not been registered. Just a poor choice of phrasing.
What stops a company from registering intent to use a huge stack of names to stop others from using them. Just like the "I'm sure their mother loves them"'s that buy every personalised licence plate they can think of (including up and coming company names) just so they can make a profit from selling those plates on to the intended victims at a profit. As an example we often get URL parking spaces trying to sell us our own company name URL with the usual tag line "before someone else buys it and starts competing with you. I could understand allowing a parking space for a disc name registration if a unique design and proof of intent is also provided, but perhaps a penalty should also be incurred for filing 'Intent' if no following actual intent is proven. (Excuse my simplicity.. I'm a maintenance engineer, not a lawyer... and not he most literate to boot).
@@TheButlerNZ each filing already has substantial lawyer fees, and I believe there's an application fee and possibly a recurring annual fee to keep a trademark registered (there is for parents). You'd probably already be choosing yourself more to reserve reserve trademarks across a meaningful fraction of the space of potential names, compared to what anyone else would pay you for particular names within that reserved inventory.
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu Chances are you wouldn't have to use a lawyer to file something when you weren't planning to do more than use it to beat someone else.. Just like you don't have to use a house shark or lawyers to sell your house... except in that case you WOULD be going through with it so it's not recommended.
I think the question we all would like to hear answered, that somehow was missed in this one, was “What SHOULD they have done?” What is the best course of action from the beginning, to avoid this? If they tried to trademark early, some other company accidentally or intentionally scooped up a disc and started using their name before mvp could get their meticulous testing process finished, why bother? It’s just a FFA of everyone throwing out discs on the market “FIRST” they claim like a UA-cam comment, and then companies are putting out prototypes too soon just to beat the competition, and we end up with flashing, discs that fly not they are supposed to, etc. how does mvp make a disc, keep the name theirs until they are ready to run it and sell it? They seemed to have done everything they could have, right?
So Essential Discs already had a disc called Balance with the PDGA before MVP registered the trade mark and now MVP is trying to take the name even though they were late? Sounds like MVP is being shady because they already spent money marketing and developing this disc and wants to just use their big company status to elbow out Essential Discs. Smh
Great video! Helped me understand why MVP essentially HAS to try for this to avoid eating expenses. Gotta say, MVP blew it on their due diligence if they couldn't figure out there was a Balance already out there. I would have bet good money on such a generic, predictable name for a disc being used by somebody. Going even further...it's a bad name to begin with. Envy, Pixel, Time Lapse, Glitch. Those are unique in the way anything animal related screams Innova. But Balance? Uninspiring.
If there was already a pdga approved disc with the same name as the one being submitted for approval, you would expect the entity who makes the approval (pdga) to notify the person who is submitting the application. In my opinion, that was where the ball was dropped.
So is there no way for MVP and other companies to protect themselves in the period between the start of prototyping and the PDGA approval? Do they have to task someone with checking the PDGA approval site daily? This would be the 2nd known instance (and there's allegedly a 3rd) of MVP having a mold name taken by another company.
This position seems to be saying that filing an intent to use application while a product is in development is actually detrimental. A competitor can monitor your filings and slap the name on something in actual sale without going through trademarking, and have a superior claim? Why tip your hand filling intent to use at all?
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu Well you still reserve the name as long as you also put the trademark into use you have a strong case. But there is not a process without litigation that automatically resolves this. But the chances for MVP are higher than 50% to get the trademark for "Balance".
Not sure how the law exactly works but just using the name for years and not filing a patent on the name to be used in disc golf doesn't mean much considering they've had years to do so. This isn't they put it out and sold it and within a year MVP came up and took the name and filed it. I have played disc golf for 8+ years and never heard of this other brand of disc golf. I'd reason to say they've had a reasonable amount of time to file their own patent on the name and never did. MVP filed it ahead of time and developed the disc and filed with the PDGA when it was time. They did everything right and there isn't a ton they could have done to prevent their scenario while Essential Discs had years to do something but didn't do a thing. Seems like they dropped the ball and it isn't MVP's fault. Them even coming out and saying they aren't really "for profit" makes their claim on the trademark less important I would think as well. Now lots of this might not be "law" but it just seems to make the most sense logically on how things should work.
If you have been selling a disc for years with a name, then it's likely you would win a dispute like this. You haven't officially filed for a trademark, but you've established use of it beforehand. Essentially you can't trademark someone elses product name after the fact and then take them to court. However, in this case it's the other way round. MVP filed for a trademark, and 5 months later another company started selling discs with that name. Now MVP has priority, because the first publically registered use for that name was by MVP. However, I believe they can't legally enforce this before they are selling the disc. Now I'm not 100% on this, but it might just be that the "Balance Prototype" was put out this quickly in the Gyropalooza box, because now they have sold a disc named "Balance" and can get their TM registered before actually starting to sell the stock disc that they intend to make.
Due to the incredibly small size of disc golf... One would ASSUME that MVP would stay away from STEALING names from other companies. It's a NAME. If a person has it, pick something else. Loved you sneaking a quick video of Brodie and Uli. They always spit out trash that's wrong.
@@theLizardof0z how do you know Essential didn't pick 'balance' by monitoring MVP's intent to use filling? MVP may not having a winning case, but they hardly "stole" the name when their attempt to reserve it was the first thing to go public. I doubt Essential actually scooped them on purpose, this is probably just an unfortunate collision over a common name. But MVP was doing what their actually supposed to by filling for the name early in product R&D.
Essential Discs is so small- if they wanted to put themselves on the map, they should make a big marketing push by renaming their disc to 'Trademark', or 'Lawsuit'. Their discs are just made by another manufacturer anyway. Changing the embossed name is cheaper than a lawsuit. 😅 But I get standing your ground for sure.
Too good of an idea for them to do it. They'd rather try to guilt people in a public statement moments after saying they aren't going to make a public statement lol
So I'm one of those who has commented quite a bit on this as a business owner who has at least studied a bit on IP protection although certainly nowhere near to the extent of you. So to try and summarize what I have said and hopefully get your thoughts and opinions on it, I still believe MVP is in the right, And this is my reasoning. Mvp specifically filed for trademark for use in disc golf sports. I have heard from people who are familiar with the other company that they did have prototypes or early versions of their Balance available at least for public viewing earlier in 2023 or possibly even in 2022, I'm uncertain if they were for sale or were just shown, but since they were not PDGA approved, they were not legal for use in the sport of professional disc golf, which is the industry MVP was applying for. And even though they applied under intent to use status, as you pointed out the reason a company would do that Is so that they don't spend thousands and thousands of dollars on production and manufacturing and inventory only to have it be a loss. They went through the proper business and legal steps to apply for trademark protection for a product they intended to use, and now have a physical product verifying that they did as their proposed intent stated. And since at the time of their filing for trademark protection there was not a product with the name Balance in use in disc golf sports (one could argue that it was in use for flying disc toys, but it was not approved for use in the sport), and the other company did not have their product approved for use in the sport until more than 6 months later, I don't see how they could use "common law trademark" as an argument. And I put that in quotations because as far as I'm aware that is not an actual legal term, although I could be wrong, but is closer to the "poor man's copyright" that was often used in music, where an artist would send themselves a copy of their song in a certified envelope and not open it. But that's again more of a case of something you can try and use to make your case, but it is not any actual legal thing. Anyways, that's my analysis, but again I'm not a lawyer, just a business owner. But I definitely agree that the other companies need to step it up and run things in a much more professional manner.
Big bummer for MVP. It sucks to do everything by the book and have both the PDGA and a no name company use your ip incorrectly. I have to imagine that essential discs, whoever they are, were bluffing about having a lawyer and this will end up going away here shortly now that they’ve gotten their 15 minutes of free publicity.
@@carnyshill684 I don't hold fighting for the name against them at all given they did file intent to use first, even if that isn't a winning argument. Not saying this is for sure what happened, but how do we know Essential wasn't keeping an eye on MVPs trademark filings to scoop the name? And even if they weren't, if their case prevails now, everybody else will from now on.
Worst case scenario, this is probably what will happen. Much like Transformers toys of the character Jazz are now all labeled "Autobot Jazz," the disc should be able to be called "Simon Line Balance" without issue.
@@Nz34gle It's not like they can't resubmit it for approval. Or submit another disc under the same name. The approval system has always been a complete mess. Two approvals for the same disc under the different names is less wacky than Innova having five molds under one approval.
Should MVP have reached out to Essential discs when their balance disc was pdga approved. Or should MVP have filed a lawsuit when Essential discs started selling the Balance?
I've poked around the career sites for the larger disc golf companies, and recall reading "reviews" by former employees of MVP that it's a fairly toxic environment. Maybe disgruntled ex-employees, sure, but sometimes when there's smoke... I'm not an expert, clearly, but with the consolidation of companies in this sport, it's got the "big beer" vibe. Like AB or Coors gobbling up all of the smaller craft brands. I don't like it, but it's inevitable, isn't it?
Essential discs can barely claim that they are a company. It looks like a hobby project using this mix up to pull money from a company that’s doing well. Such a grimy move. Trash people.
As an attorney who practices outside of intellectual property law - but who loves and studied the topic in law school - I greatly appreciate the effort you put into this content. Thank you!
I'd like to hear your explanation and take on the rule changes for 2025. Thank you for taking this complicated issue and making it palatable.
Jes Plz
What is the purpose of registering the intent to use trademark if it doesn’t protect the use of the name.
I've been waiting for this all week
This was your best yet imo. Thank you for clearing that up.
Just seems so crazy that they don't just drop the name to kill the head ache. Balance sounds nice but not so amazing that its worth dumping legal fees into.
These videos are underrated, glad you make these
There are several discs that have the same name that are PDGA approved and are made by different companies. Whether they are on the market at the same time is difficult to say.
I.e.
Disc mold: Apollo
Manufacturers: Wham-O (approved 1997); Alfa Disc (approved 2021)
Disc mold: Falcon
Manufacturers: lightning discs (approved 1987); millennium discs (approved 2019)
Disc mold: lockdown
Manufacturers: Doomsday (approved 2023); Guru (approved 2021)
Discs mold: Lex
Manufacturers: UB Disc (approved 2014); Disc king (approved 2016)
In short: there doesn't seem to be a specific rule by the PDGA that discs have to use unique names that have not been approved already.
Lockdown has also been used by Schildkröt (Compyiny that normally produces Table tennis but tried to branch into DG during th "Lockdown"
So MVP files their Intent to Use and begins work to develop the disc. What was the point of the Intent to Use if someone (Essential) could just scoop the name while MVP was doing their development work? What should MVP have done differently to protect their name, as based on this it seems like they went through the correct steps to protect themselves?
They could of started selling the disc in various ways, to show its being sold and used, then file for the trademark.
Having a use case example goes a long way in court.
Mvp has the edge for filing the patent application, however, Essential has sold discs called the Balance and has commerce with it, and could win this based on that alone.
I believe that Essential did not scoop anything. I think they used the name years before MVP (just no TM filing, which is common). MVP might have researched the name and approached Essential about acquiring rights to it.
@@martyjenkins3631 Per the PDGA website, Essential's disc was approved May 27, 2024. MVP applied for trademark December 14, 2023. While neither of those facts tells us when Essential's disc began production (which could theoretically have been years before they sought PDGA approval), it seems likely that Essential and MVP both landed on the name Balance independently and at around the same time.
@@martyjenkins3631you have no clue lol
@@martyjenkins3631 They have the patent filing on their side. They did what any smart business would do and do things legally and not cut corners. Mvp has more money to throw at this, and has a more legal claim to that name, regardless if Essential sold 14 discs to customers.
Essential is going to find out that fighting a patent/Ip suit for 1 disc is going to hurt them more than help. The legal fees theyll lose fighting it far outwieghs the disc sales for that 1 disc.
Mvp wins this. Its not even a hard thought to make.
As someone who commented in detail on your previous video on this, I think you pretty much summed it up, except for the part where there are 2 balance discs flying in the sky. And I think it would be fun to trademark zone for S&G's of course.
I'm not saying this is what occurred, but if an organization decided to be sketchy, could they peruse the list of intent to use trademarks and specifically target those with the intention to force legal action and potentially get a payout? If so, what's the point of intent to use at all?
Disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer and am simply going off logic here which sadly often doesn't apply to legal processes. In that situation, my guess (or perhaps just hope) would be that if it makes it to court, the company trying to snipe the names from trademark applications would lose when their records show there was no development or consideration of using the name until after the applications were submitted.
To your other question, the purpose of filing intent to use is probably mainly for situations where two companies submit trademark applications for the same or sufficiently similar name and use. In this situation, imo, the earlier intent to use application date would take priority for approval.
One of the nice things about being an artist (of any type, including author or writer) is you get to learn copyright and trademark law simply by virtue of the industry we are in. And so as soon as this came out, my first thought was the fact that a trademark does not have to be registered in order to be enforceable. Registration certainly helps, but if you can prove your trademark was there first, you stand an overwhelming chance of beating all but the largest multi-billion dollar household name corporations. If the infringing entity isn't a household name, then they almost certainly lose on the premise that a trademark in use is protectable in the US whether or not it is registered. It really does help small businesses in all but the most extreme cases.
Does filing an intent to use application out you as planning to develop a product and put you at risk for someone else to make a product quicker than you? When would be the best time in the process to submit a trademark application to minimize risk?
Thank you for making these videos and breaking things down for the average viewer!
So what should mvp have done to prevent this?
Frankly they probably could have just stamped a 2 on all their existing discs and not said anything at all. Make Balance 2 for a year and then filed a trademark for Balance 2. They might have caught some flack from the other company, but due to their size I would bet there is very little chance anyone would do anything
I realy love these videos! It satisfies my brains love for putting pieces in place. And this story in particular, because some giant company try to stomp on the little guy and faild.
Disc golf disc manufacturing is such a small and niche area that it apparently isn't necessary nor is it fiscally sound to get a trademark protection over every disc a company manufactures, especially considering that they may go out of production in as short of time as one year, and that seems pretty stupid to trademark a disc name that isn't even going to get a full production run like the Ace Race 2011 disc which didn't even go into production because the feedback from the Ace Race is that people didn't like it enough even though it is actually an awesome disc. Ace Race is in fact one of the only words that Discraft has trademarked in addition to the words Discraft and Buzzz.
Thus far it's been very gentlemanly that these has thus far been no need to trademark all your disc names, even innova only has their most popular most generic disc names trademarked such as beast, boss, valkyrie, wraith, and leopard.
Gateway doesn't have any of their disc names trademarked not Wizard, spell, journey, spirit, spell, demon, NOTHING.
It makes sense for certain industries to trademark their product names, unique company features like the exact shade of color associated with the product, logos, slogans, etc, because of how much competition there is and how intense or cutthroat that competition is.
We already have the pdga to determine what names are already in use and thus off limits.
I don't think that disc golf needs to go down the extreme legal protection route where you have to have a registered trademark over every disc
I posted below the PDGA's stance on disc names and etc. Unfortunately relying on good faith will only get so far and trademarks are a necessary evil to an extent.
The PDGA doesn't referee name conflicts and expects the affected
manufacturers to resolve naming issues before a new disc is approved. Submitted equipment
may not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of another manufacturer regarding any
previously approved equipment. The PDGA does not arbitrate such name or design disputes
and expects the affected manufacturers to resolve any potential issues before new equipment
can be approved. - Per the PDGA Technical Standards.
How much use in commerce is required? Upon registering intent to use, could MVP release a “Balance” placeholder disc? ( stamp a Hex or whatever )
You CANNOT prove to me Chad and Brad are in it for profit. They way they explain things and how they listen and the way they change and update things based on user feedback and then go above and beyond at the same time. The way they really get into the minute details for the sake of consistency. Not a chance. Those bros love the sport
Great video Chris!
I noticed that Essential discs had a disc named the Honey. Why no name dispute with the other company that sells the Honey?
Because the other company doesn't sell the Honey. They sell the ***Wild*** Honey :)
If I remember correctly, Clash originally had the mold named “Honey” when they released prototypes. But then ran into to this exact problem with Essential Discs so they had to rename it to Wild Honey.
For most companies having to change the name isn’t that big of a deal because they stamp the name onto the disc, but with mvp they emboss the name of the disc on the overmold. For them it’s probably expensive to retool the overmold portion of a disc if another company beats them to market with a name. Considering the high cost to make new molds in general, it’s a major setback with manufacturing costs and loss of time in production. I see why mvp would try and protect themselves against such a setback.
It’s hilarious to me how good this channel has been eating the past year.
Here’s to hoping for a 2025 with less disc golf dot Law videos 😅
Love your stuff, keep it up.
The idea that these disc companies can even trademark the names of their discs is just stupid to me. Am I not supposed to be able to tell the difference between an MVP balance and an essential disc balance? No one cares what you call the dumb thing. It's how they fly. Prodigy is the only one that has a decent naming scheme.
I thought that if the trademark was approved they would be able to enforce it from the date of filing? Meaning that essential discs would be in the wrong since they released and developed it after the date of registration, which is why it was important
How much does the "court of public opinion" apply here? From what I have seen, most disc golfers have never heard of Essential Discs before this situation (perhaps fortuitous for Essential that this happened, honestly), and most would probably be more aware of MVP's use of Balance than ED's. If MVP was not first to use it in commerce, but still held the crown from a "recognition" perspective, how could that change a potential ruling?
13:23 If a mf is spending 7 mil in general, I'm sure he/she has the relevancy and influence to be alright. That isn't hell. If I lose $500 i literally might die. lmao
I’ve been waiting for this
Once upon a time disc golf manufacturers just used common sense and didn't try taking names that were out there... No longer is such the case with the amount of money floating around.
I think my only issue with what you’ve stated here is the way you harped a lot on MVPs use of the word “register(ed)” which was more than likely a disconnect between the public relations person who wrote the statements, and their knowledge of the process and use of terminology. Based on the entire statement as a whole, it’s clear they know that it has not been registered. Just a poor choice of phrasing.
Nice work. Keep it up.
What stops a company from registering intent to use a huge stack of names to stop others from using them.
Just like the "I'm sure their mother loves them"'s that buy every personalised licence plate they can think of (including up and coming company names) just so they can make a profit from selling those plates on to the intended victims at a profit.
As an example we often get URL parking spaces trying to sell us our own company name URL with the usual tag line "before someone else buys it and starts competing with you.
I could understand allowing a parking space for a disc name registration if a unique design and proof of intent is also provided, but perhaps a penalty should also be incurred for filing 'Intent' if no following actual intent is proven. (Excuse my simplicity.. I'm a maintenance engineer, not a lawyer... and not he most literate to boot).
@@TheButlerNZ each filing already has substantial lawyer fees, and I believe there's an application fee and possibly a recurring annual fee to keep a trademark registered (there is for parents).
You'd probably already be choosing yourself more to reserve reserve trademarks across a meaningful fraction of the space of potential names, compared to what anyone else would pay you for particular names within that reserved inventory.
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu Chances are you wouldn't have to use a lawyer to file something when you weren't planning to do more than use it to beat someone else.. Just like you don't have to use a house shark or lawyers to sell your house... except in that case you WOULD be going through with it so it's not recommended.
I think the question we all would like to hear answered, that somehow was missed in this one, was “What SHOULD they have done?” What is the best course of action from the beginning, to avoid this? If they tried to trademark early, some other company accidentally or intentionally scooped up a disc and started using their name before mvp could get their meticulous testing process finished, why bother? It’s just a FFA of everyone throwing out discs on the market “FIRST” they claim like a UA-cam comment, and then companies are putting out prototypes too soon just to beat the competition, and we end up with flashing, discs that fly not they are supposed to, etc. how does mvp make a disc, keep the name theirs until they are ready to run it and sell it? They seemed to have done everything they could have, right?
Great video!
So Essential Discs already had a disc called Balance with the PDGA before MVP registered the trade mark and now MVP is trying to take the name even though they were late? Sounds like MVP is being shady because they already spent money marketing and developing this disc and wants to just use their big company status to elbow out Essential Discs. Smh
MVP had the trademark filed in December 2023. Essential Discs had their disc approved in 2024.
Great video! Helped me understand why MVP essentially HAS to try for this to avoid eating expenses. Gotta say, MVP blew it on their due diligence if they couldn't figure out there was a Balance already out there. I would have bet good money on such a generic, predictable name for a disc being used by somebody. Going even further...it's a bad name to begin with. Envy, Pixel, Time Lapse, Glitch. Those are unique in the way anything animal related screams Innova. But Balance? Uninspiring.
There wasn't a "balance" out there though. MVP applied for the trademark in December, and Essential discs got their disc PDGA approved in May.
If there was already a pdga approved disc with the same name as the one being submitted for approval, you would expect the entity who makes the approval (pdga) to notify the person who is submitting the application. In my opinion, that was where the ball was dropped.
So is there no way for MVP and other companies to protect themselves in the period between the start of prototyping and the PDGA approval? Do they have to task someone with checking the PDGA approval site daily? This would be the 2nd known instance (and there's allegedly a 3rd) of MVP having a mold name taken by another company.
This position seems to be saying that filing an intent to use application while a product is in development is actually detrimental.
A competitor can monitor your filings and slap the name on something in actual sale without going through trademarking, and have a superior claim? Why tip your hand filling intent to use at all?
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu Well you still reserve the name as long as you also put the trademark into use you have a strong case. But there is not a process without litigation that automatically resolves this. But the chances for MVP are higher than 50% to get the trademark for "Balance".
Not sure how the law exactly works but just using the name for years and not filing a patent on the name to be used in disc golf doesn't mean much considering they've had years to do so. This isn't they put it out and sold it and within a year MVP came up and took the name and filed it. I have played disc golf for 8+ years and never heard of this other brand of disc golf. I'd reason to say they've had a reasonable amount of time to file their own patent on the name and never did. MVP filed it ahead of time and developed the disc and filed with the PDGA when it was time. They did everything right and there isn't a ton they could have done to prevent their scenario while Essential Discs had years to do something but didn't do a thing. Seems like they dropped the ball and it isn't MVP's fault. Them even coming out and saying they aren't really "for profit" makes their claim on the trademark less important I would think as well. Now lots of this might not be "law" but it just seems to make the most sense logically on how things should work.
If you have been selling a disc for years with a name, then it's likely you would win a dispute like this. You haven't officially filed for a trademark, but you've established use of it beforehand. Essentially you can't trademark someone elses product name after the fact and then take them to court. However, in this case it's the other way round. MVP filed for a trademark, and 5 months later another company started selling discs with that name. Now MVP has priority, because the first publically registered use for that name was by MVP. However, I believe they can't legally enforce this before they are selling the disc. Now I'm not 100% on this, but it might just be that the "Balance Prototype" was put out this quickly in the Gyropalooza box, because now they have sold a disc named "Balance" and can get their TM registered before actually starting to sell the stock disc that they intend to make.
So if blackrock knew they would buy every name in dg and lease them to the owners. Laws are cool and used perfectly all the time.
I'm sure changes will be inevitable.
$10,000 should settle it
Essentially shuttering their reputation
Due to the incredibly small size of disc golf... One would ASSUME that MVP would stay away from STEALING names from other companies. It's a NAME. If a person has it, pick something else.
Loved you sneaking a quick video of Brodie and Uli. They always spit out trash that's wrong.
If MVP filed for trademark before the essential discs you could also view it as essential stealing MVP’s name… How do you determine who was first?
@@theLizardof0z how do you know Essential didn't pick 'balance' by monitoring MVP's intent to use filling?
MVP may not having a winning case, but they hardly "stole" the name when their attempt to reserve it was the first thing to go public.
I doubt Essential actually scooped them on purpose, this is probably just an unfortunate collision over a common name. But MVP was doing what their actually supposed to by filling for the name early in product R&D.
@@xcfjdyrkdtulkgfilhu uh, essential disc had the balance before MVP filed?
Essential Discs is so small- if they wanted to put themselves on the map, they should make a big marketing push by renaming their disc to 'Trademark', or 'Lawsuit'. Their discs are just made by another manufacturer anyway. Changing the embossed name is cheaper than a lawsuit. 😅 But I get standing your ground for sure.
Too good of an idea for them to do it. They'd rather try to guilt people in a public statement moments after saying they aren't going to make a public statement lol
@@j45002 haha, I'd buy it if they renamed it "Cease and Desist" and got it PDGA approved as that 😂
Why can't they both have a disc called the Balance?
Why can’t Burger King have a Big Mac?
MVP should just put a “d” on it. “Balanced “who cares.
Just court fodder!
So I'm one of those who has commented quite a bit on this as a business owner who has at least studied a bit on IP protection although certainly nowhere near to the extent of you. So to try and summarize what I have said and hopefully get your thoughts and opinions on it, I still believe MVP is in the right, And this is my reasoning. Mvp specifically filed for trademark for use in disc golf sports. I have heard from people who are familiar with the other company that they did have prototypes or early versions of their Balance available at least for public viewing earlier in 2023 or possibly even in 2022, I'm uncertain if they were for sale or were just shown, but since they were not PDGA approved, they were not legal for use in the sport of professional disc golf, which is the industry MVP was applying for. And even though they applied under intent to use status, as you pointed out the reason a company would do that Is so that they don't spend thousands and thousands of dollars on production and manufacturing and inventory only to have it be a loss. They went through the proper business and legal steps to apply for trademark protection for a product they intended to use, and now have a physical product verifying that they did as their proposed intent stated. And since at the time of their filing for trademark protection there was not a product with the name Balance in use in disc golf sports (one could argue that it was in use for flying disc toys, but it was not approved for use in the sport), and the other company did not have their product approved for use in the sport until more than 6 months later, I don't see how they could use "common law trademark" as an argument. And I put that in quotations because as far as I'm aware that is not an actual legal term, although I could be wrong, but is closer to the "poor man's copyright" that was often used in music, where an artist would send themselves a copy of their song in a certified envelope and not open it. But that's again more of a case of something you can try and use to make your case, but it is not any actual legal thing.
Anyways, that's my analysis, but again I'm not a lawyer, just a business owner. But I definitely agree that the other companies need to step it up and run things in a much more professional manner.
Big bummer for MVP. It sucks to do everything by the book and have both the PDGA and a no name company use your ip incorrectly.
I have to imagine that essential discs, whoever they are, were bluffing about having a lawyer and this will end up going away here shortly now that they’ve gotten their 15 minutes of free publicity.
Maybe MVP should re name it "bad optics"
@@carnyshill684 I don't hold fighting for the name against them at all given they did file intent to use first, even if that isn't a winning argument.
Not saying this is for sure what happened, but how do we know Essential wasn't keeping an eye on MVPs trademark filings to scoop the name? And even if they weren't, if their case prevails now, everybody else will from now on.
Wouldn’t the Simon Line Balance be a different name than the Essential Discs Balance?
Worst case scenario, this is probably what will happen. Much like Transformers toys of the character Jazz are now all labeled "Autobot Jazz," the disc should be able to be called "Simon Line Balance" without issue.
That's what they have done with the prototype, but the disc name is balance, not SL balance, or ED balance...
@@Nz34gle It's not like they can't resubmit it for approval. Or submit another disc under the same name. The approval system has always been a complete mess. Two approvals for the same disc under the different names is less wacky than Innova having five molds under one approval.
Should MVP have reached out to Essential discs when their balance disc was pdga approved. Or should MVP have filed a lawsuit when Essential discs started selling the Balance?
They did reach out to them when they found out the PDGA approved a disc called Balance. And they said Essential Discs didn't budge on the name.
common nouns like "balance" should not able to be trademarked
It's only being trademarked for intent to use IN disc golf manufactured products. You can't trademark it in general
@@Flava_DaveYes, and his comment is still valid... It would be like trademarking the names toss, throw, catch, hold, etc.
MVP at 6:40 : shit
I've poked around the career sites for the larger disc golf companies, and recall reading "reviews" by former employees of MVP that it's a fairly toxic environment. Maybe disgruntled ex-employees, sure, but sometimes when there's smoke... I'm not an expert, clearly, but with the consolidation of companies in this sport, it's got the "big beer" vibe. Like AB or Coors gobbling up all of the smaller craft brands. I don't like it, but it's inevitable, isn't it?
This week - I've decided not to buy any more MVP branded discs.
"we do this for the love of the game and not a love of profit"
buuuut No we are already "selling" a balance
Essential discs can barely claim that they are a company. It looks like a hobby project using this mix up to pull money from a company that’s doing well. Such a grimy move. Trash people.
So MVP is bluffing in an attempt to bully a smaller company? Not a good look for them...
It could also be insinuated that the smaller company is holding a big company to ransom to get a big payout...
Simon should've just went with the name shutter
Sounds like Essential is trying to gain some publicity 🤷
Essential discs is a joke
I've never heard of this brand before.
@Mark-ro5zg the owners husband put my local course in. It was so bad someone else had to fix it 1/10 don't recommend his design
Sounds like Essential Discs is going to get a lot of $$$ tho..
mvp sucks
I think you wasted my time.