Mission suing Tour?

[umroller]

I heard a rumor that Mission has filed a lawsuit against Tour over the use of Mission's patented "Hi-Lo" system for its skates. Is this true? More information?



http://members.aol.com/umroller/images/benecrha.jpg

[Titan55]

Everybody has a hi-lo setup. If they are thats just rediculous!

[-venom-]

not necessarily.... Mission came out with the concept first, and patented the actual Hi-Lo name.... I can see them suing over it. Dumb yes, but with good reason, maybe.

[Titan55]

Did tour ever actually call it a "Hi-Lo" though...I don't remember them using it. If they did, then yes mission does have a right to sue...but really it is pretty stupid!

[SpeedDemon]

Tour is being sued. Don't know the details.

[umroller]

You don't patent a name, for instance "Hi-Lo." You patent an invention. They could get a trademark on the name "Hi-Lo" but Tour doesn't use "Hi-Lo" they use some other name that I can't recall at the moment. Mission probably patented the technology and design of the Hi-Lo which Tour allegedly took and used in their own skates under a different name. Also, just because several companies have been using the technology, if Mission invented it first and patented it they have a right to defend their patent by suing the other companies who are making money off of their invention.



http://members.aol.com/umroller/images/benecrha.jpg

[umroller]

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with stealing the name "Hi-Lo" it is instead about stealing the DESIGN of the Hi-Lo type chassis regardless of what they name it. If Tour is using the design, even if they call it something else they may be infringing Mission's patent. Of course this is all being done "allegedly" and the veracity of any allegations are yet to be proven.



http://members.aol.com/umroller/images/benecrha.jpg

[Titan55]

If this is the case...umm...didn;t labeda design missions chassis for the first hi-lo. As well...why aren't they suing...Labeda, Bauer(Shifty), Nike, Gear, Volcanix, etc...they all have hi-lo chassis. Mission is being childish.

[paddymac]

I wouldn't call it being childish. Mission is protecting their investment and the technology that they came up with. Mission wants a competitive edge over their competitors and if their competitors are just going to steal thier technology and use it they won't gain this edge. Mission would be stupid not to sue if this is the case. Another company is making money off of their engineering.

p-mac

[Titan55]

Actually mission is benefiting from Labedas engineering. My point is, why don't the sue all the companies who use a hi-lo system?

[MDE3]

Actually we bought a Labeda Hi/lo before Missions Hi/lo skates were on the market......back in about May of 1997. They introduced the Hi/Lo skates that year at USAC Nationals in Iowa I believe around Mid July. Unless they bought the patent rights from Labeda, I would be surprised if it's over the Hi/Lo design....maybe over the single axle/screw design.

The Labeda Hi/lo had been out for about 4 -6 months before that as I recall.

[MDE3]

I agree. The Hi/lo was originally a Labeda design possibly licensed for use by Mission. In fact if I remember correctly, the Labeda web-site used to have a big write up on their commitment to technical development including the hi/lo chassis.

If it was an exclusive licencing agreement, they may have a case. Normally what will happen is that a percentage of the sales $ accrued by unauthorized users of the patented design (if infingement is proven) will be awarded to the plaintiff only if it's proven that there is infingement, if it's proven that the rights to use the design were licenced exclusively to Mission, and if it's proven that Mission suffered a measureable loss in sales volume due to the design being "usurped".

[Titan55]

I still think it is stupid. Why doesn't CCM sue baure for using steel skate blades. I believe CCM wa around before Bauer. for that matter...lets findout who made the first hockeystick, and then sue everyone else who coppied their design. Its petty bullcrap!

[umroller]

Very interesting. Thanks for the insight. We can only wonder at this point.



http://members.aol.com/umroller/images/benecrha.jpg

[MDE3]

The pursuit of another company like this usually has more to do with someone's corporate ego being bent out of shape than any real financial benefit. I have been involved in a variety of patent infingement cases in a different industry over the years.....score...Lawyers all smiles, everyone else big frowns.

All that has to happen to invalidate these claims is for someone to turn up a small private company who thought of the same idea before patents were applied for, produced one or two "hi/lo chassis', and then sold them on a commercial basis. This is a very common occurence and it will destroy someone's patent infingement case. Then after years of battling in court, the case get's thrown out when someone like this turns up. The design then becomes "common domain".