Introduction
The toy industry is arguably one of the high-risk sectors regarding counterfeiting. According to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), counterfeit toys account for approximately 14 percent of the total seizures made by customs services across Europe (Pigeaux, 2019). Counterfeiting in the toy industry is common particularly due to how easy and fast it could be to make similar toys to the original and flood the market before the original creators come to the scene. The effects are irreversible as creators affected by counterfeits incur considerable economic losses coupled with a compromise to originality. However, to avoid such risks, it is important to protect our intellectual property as manufacturers of unique and educational toys for children between ages one and three years old. Listed below are various aspects of the newly developed toy that a manufacturer and seller must have protected as intellectual property; functions under the jurisdiction of the Federal government bureaucracy.
General Appearance of the Toy
The appearance of the toy is achieved through rigorous exercise coupled with research and construction by a unique set of materials to achieve tactility. Design patents are important in the protection of the aesthetic characteristics of toys which not different from the subject product. This is an original idea that qualifies to be patented as a design patent which has a 15-year term from the date of issuance.
The tactility of Aspect the Toy
Utility patents protect the useful aspects of the toy ranging from how the toy is constructed and its functionality. Research on the toy, commissioned by the innovator indicates that the subject toy accelerates children’s learning which is tied to its tactile experience. This feature sets the toy apart from the rest of the products offered in the industry and this could be the difference between the success and failure of our product. The company therefore must protect this unique feature of the toy by obtaining a utility patent for the same. Under the law, a utility patent lasts for 20 years from the date of its application (International Trade Administration, n.d). After the expiration of 20 year period, the invention can be used by other players in the industry.
Rhythmic Tune
Research on the usability of the toy indicates that the learning experience in children is enhanced further by a specific rhythmic tune. This tune is also the company’s original creation that should be protected through copyright. Copyrights hold during the life of the author and an additional 70 years from the time of innovation.
Packaging
The packaging of the toy will be key to the identification of the toy as it is unique and one of the features that make the toy attractive to users. The yellow shade is an original work achieved by a combination of specific colors that could easily be copied by counterfeiters. Therefore, the fact that that yellow shade is not available anywhere in the market is an indication of originality and hence subject to trade dress which theoretically lasts to eternality but is subject to renewal.
Brand Name
For purposes of identification and to be distinguishable from other brands and competitors the company will have to trademark the “superSMARTkids” brand name. The trademark will also be used as a key marketing tool and as a basis for building the brand’s image as a provider of innovative and educational toys for children. Hypothetically, trademarks last forever as long as the owner ensures the continued availability of the product in the market between the fifth and sixth years after registration (Ali, 2020). However, trademarks are subject to renewal.
Conclusion
Generally, it takes a considerably long period to obtain various Intellectual property rights hence the application processes ought to be done strategically before the introduction of the product in the market (O’Donnell & Thompson, 2021). However, our product is educational and is not limited to seasons hence the length of obtaining the various protection rights is unlikely to have any substantial effect on the business.
References
Ali, M. (2020). Raising the bar: can toys die? — And intellectual property.
International Trade Administration (n.d). Intellectual Property Right s(IPR) Basics. Web.
O’Donnell, A.L., & Thompson, J. (2021).Toy meets World: IP Strategies for the toy Industry.
Pigeaux, F. (2019). Toys, intellectual property and counterfeiting.