DJM, the end.

[Oldddudders]

I haven't understood who is believed to actually own the toolings - if indeed that matters to the Chinese as they currently seem to hold them. But were the Chinese to find a UK supplier willing to do a new deal on the toolings, would the liquidators have a case for pursuing the new owners to take them back, or otherwise press DJ's claim to the IP? 

[truffy]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

I haven't understood who is believed to actually own the toolings - if indeed that matters to the Chinese as they currently seem to hold them. But were the Chinese to find a UK supplier willing to do a new deal on the toolings, would the liquidators have a case for pursuing the new owners to take them back, or otherwise press DJ's claim to the IP? 

True...unless the Chinese actually own the toolings (because, for example, they haven't been paid)

[RedgateModels]

I would expect any prospective manufacturer to be dealing with the Liquidators who will have contacted the Chinese factory in order to sort out some kind of amicable deal.

 

New manufacturer would need to pay any outstanding sums that are owed to the Chinese in all likelihood, plus possibly a few quid for the rights to the design

Edited June 12, 2019 by RedgateModels

[Ravenser]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Up until now they have offered them (or rather models made using them) to various people so I understand and have had no luck in finding any takers.  Once DJM is out of the way as a going concern someone might conceivably be interested but you come straight back to the competitive situation I mentioned above,  And who would be willing to take on that commercial risk?

 

 

The Class 71 tooling is probably of no commercial value - it's a niche loco of short life span and limited range which is also available from Hornby. The J94 clearly needs a new mechanism capable of delivering the sort of running seen from the Hornby Peckett  . The N gauge Mermaid is small fry

 

Not much to pursue. The rest is commissioned models where other parties have possession or claims to ownership

[Ravenser]

9 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

It might be feasible for someone like Hornby to modify the tooling of the Austerity chassis to use a more conventional motor, lose a few gears and add some functioning coupling rods. Would then make a very fine loco indeed. 

 

There is a strong market for a higher spec Austerity/J94 (in all scales) despite Dave's efforts

 

It may be this clears the space for someone else to do a top-quality Austerity

[The Black Hat]

Just now, RedgateModels said:

It might be feasible for someone like Hornby to modify the tooling of the Austerity chassis to use a more conventional motor, lose a few gears and add some functioning coupling rods. Would then make a very fine loco indeed. 

 

There is a strong market for a higher spec Austerity/J94 (in all scales) despite Dave's efforts

 

I think it will be interesting to see where the parts of the DJ Models range end up, as I can see the company running the insolvency process being called and capital offered for obtaining such tooling that was solely part of the DJ range. Some shops and commissions I expect would own the tooling as they will hire in DJ Models to bring a product to them but own the tooling outright. Yet,  although some could hire in others could just buy the finished product off DJ. If that's the case, then that's one gap that DJ as a company would have to fund and cashflow on companies would need to follow. If it hasn't that one way a hole in finances can appear.

 

I think some products need very minor modification and that they can be made to work fine as they are, but as said, where some tooling goes to and which shops and commissions claim it is theirs will be interesting to see. Then comes the challenge of if DJ will attempt to claim IP rights, or be owed a payment if DJ range models are continued to be made by others.

 

[Mark Saunders]

10 minutes ago, The Black Hat said:

 Then comes the challenge of if DJ will attempt to claim IP rights, or be owed a payment if DJ range models are continued to be made by others.

 

 

Do the IP rights rest with him personally or the company and as such could be up for sale via the liquidators?

 

Mark Saunders

[RedgateModels]

I think it has been stated that the IPs were registered to DJ Models Ltd.

[Phil Parker]

11 minutes ago, RedgateModels said:

I think it has been stated that the IPs were registered to DJ Models Ltd.

 

But does anyone know exactly what the IP is on? We've already established that it's not the general shape of the loco, and the internals don't seem to be registered. If you want to claim IP, you better have an idea exactly what you are claiming. 

[The Black Hat]

17 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Do the IP rights rest with him personally or the company and as such could be up for sale via the liquidators?

 

Mark Saunders

 

That's something I think those that commissioned the company to make a model would be interested for the liquidators to acertain, but as said above my understanding is that they would be registered to the company - i.e. be the package as a whole of the model as the components put together and how the end product is turned out as. Whether these can be paid for as a means to access tooling and restart production is up to the liquidators and those that have the tooling in China. Some of the companies in China may have to write off debt and instead restart production with a new company, but at least then capital would be paid to them and they can continue in the medium and longer term. Them expecting total recovery from what's left of DJ Models is also unrealistic - hence I'm thinking that selling access and production to other companies could be a means to get back business and for liquidators to recover capital. Question is, who rather than if, anyone will move and on what. Some commissions would be good to add to some companies general range, if they can be obtained too.

 

I do feel for Dave, he must have gone through a lot to be in this position - but much of that has already been covered.

Edited June 12, 2019 by The Black Hat

[rab]

5 hours ago, spikey said:

 

Not only does this man have moderator skilz, he also speaks the language of yoof!

 

Is he perhaps some kind of hipster too?

He's been eating too much cake!

[JSpencer]

42 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

The J94 clearly needs a new mechanism capable of delivering the sort of running seen from the Hornby Peckett  .

 

I'm not sure if its more economical to buy the J94 tooling and tool up a new mech or just simply tool up the entire loco. The former involves much messing around going through all these parties to get use of the tools, then finding someone to review these tools and design a new chassis to fit. The latter, everything is designed entirely from scratch with no compatibility issues and no issues of being restrained by the existing model's options.

 

Indeed when Bachmann stuck new mechs under old bodies, the difference in price vis-a-vis an entirely new model was not worth bothering about.

 

[Yorkshire Square]

https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner

[Yorkshire Square]

55 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

The N gauge Mermaid is small fry.

 

Very good. 

[Phil Parker]

OK, I've had a chat with the CG Recovery and spoken to one of the two people looking after all of this. 

 

At this stage, the most important thing anyone who has handed over money can do is e-mail their details, especially any invoice they received to either

 

stephanie.adams@cg-recovery.com

or

megan.burr@cg-recovery.com

 

From this, they will be able to give you some advice. More importantly, your details will go into their database for future updates. If you don't register, then you don't go in the database and won't get updates. The documents already sent out shouldn't be posted to the web at this stage as they are for creditors only, so please don't do it. 

 

These are very early days in the process, there is a lot to work out so don't expect a quick resolution.

[Phil Parker]

8 minutes ago, Yorkshire Square said:

https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

[melmerby]

8 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

IMHO All they are is nice coloured representations of prototype locomotives, which anybody who scans/measures up can produce.

There seems to be little in them that could be claimed to be someone's unique design apart from the CME that produced the 12"/ ft version.

[Yorkshire Square]

5 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

 

https://www.gov.uk/register-a-design

 

Quote

Check if you can register your design

You can register the look of a product you’ve designed to stop people copying or stealing it.

The look of your design includes the:

 

appearance

physical shape

configuration (or how different parts of a design are arranged together)

decoration

 

What you can and can’t register

To register your design, it must:

 

be new

not be offensive (for example feature graphic images or words)

be your own intellectual property

not make use of protected emblems or flags (for example the Olympic rings or the Royal Crown)

not be an invention or how a product works - you’ll need a patent instead

 

It can only be the configuration of the design. The appearance, physically shape and decoration are not new (they exist on the real thing already).

 

If you were to produce a model with an identical configuration of components, then DJ Models (or their successors) may have a claim against you.

[BR Blue]

6 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

Exactly. The specific CADs and associated files owned by DJM (and now owned by the liquidator) cannot be used without permission to create products.  However even that is blurred by fact that DJM did not create the files, the Chinese factory did and there is the question if the factory was ever paid for all this work. So even the ownership of the CADs is contentious. 

Additionally I wonder whether one of the registered CADs listed, that for D600, was ultimately ever used. I know for a fact that at least one of the other projects listed on the DJM website did not ultimately use the DJM created files and everything was redone before production as what DJM created was ultimately not considered suitable and there was no DJM contribution to the product that came to market.

[Phil Parker]

2 minutes ago, Yorkshire Square said:

If you were to produce a model with an identical configuration of components, then DJ Models (or their successors) may have a claim against you.

 

This would work if the IP registrations showed the components and how they fitted together. Several just show the overall shape.

[The Stationmaster]

20 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

Are you claiming IP on the Essendine Hotel Phil?

 

As far the DJM IPs are concerned I can't see the point of them.  If somebody else owns the tooling - which they have paid for and have established title to - then the IP as an overall 'picture' is irrelevant and it certainly can't represent the finished model anyway because it does not involve some critical parts such as the mechanism or even, in some cases, features included on the finished models.  

 

And the provenance of some of the IPs is in any case highly debatable (e.g. the 1361) so overall I think it is something of a red herring and perhaps something that DJ himself has put the liquidator up to - odd that they only became public knowledge so recently.  Rather odd too in my view that both this and the matter of the old dispute with the factory over Class 71, Class 17, and J94 tooling ownership etc should suddenly emerge into the liquidation process where it's all happening at the liquidator's expense (against money they would seem highly unlikely to ever get back). 

Edited June 12, 2019 by The Stationmaster
correct typo

[Mark Saunders]

25 minutes ago, Yorkshire Square said:

https://www.registered-design.service.gov.uk/find/mibc2je9/92393612/designsbyowner

 

The below is reply from registered design service and it appears they don't understand the concept that a model is a copy of a real thing!

 

I hope that someone can make sense of the below?

>

To:marksaunders2000@yahoo.co.uk

‎13‎ ‎May at ‎07‎:‎45

Dear Mr Saunders,

 

I am writing in reply to your email whereby you are seeking information regarding the scope of protection relating to three Design registrations owned by David Jones Models.

 

To clarify, a registered design protects the visual appearance of a product, as set out by section 1(2) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA):

A design can protect the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product of its ornamentation.

 

Upon filing an application Rule 5(2) of the Registered Designs Rules 2006 (as amended) requires that an applicant specify ‘the product to which the design is intended to be applied or in which it is intended to be incorporated’. This is also known as an ‘indication of product’. In this instance the applicant has specified the designs are to be applied to the following products:

               6043481 – OO gauge class 92 electric locomotive

               6043479 – OO gauge class 71 electric locomotive

               6043225 – Model railway locomotive

 

You will however note from Chapter 7.06 of the Registered Designs Examination Practice Guide that the indication of product pursuant to Rule 5(2) does not limit the scope of protection. It is merely required as part of the application process to enable the Office to classify the design for searching purposes.

 

Further, section 7(1) of the RDA confirms that a registered design gives the proprietor the exclusive right to use that design, or any design, which does not differ in its overall impression:

The registration of a design under this Act gives the registered proprietor the exclusive right to use the design and any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

Section 7(3) of the RDA also applies:

In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether a design produces a different overall impression on the informed user, the degree of freedom of the author in creating his design shall be taken into consideration.

 

Whilst I have outlined the relevant sections of the Act and Rules which you may wish to consider I cannot comment on the scope of protection relating to the registered designs. This can only be determined by a court or relevant authority. Equally, I am unable to provide legal advice and therefore cannot advise what rights a registered design confers upon its owner. You may wish to contact an IP legal attorney who can help with this.

 

Should you wish to seek legal advice, you may contact The Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA ) on 02071016090, 5th Floor, Outer Temple, 222-225 Strand, London, WC2R 1BA, or the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) on 02074059450, 2nd Floor Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD.

I have checked the online system and can confirm that design number 6043225 is showing images of the design registered on the system.

 

Your sincerely

 

Tracy Hourahine

 

Tracy Hourahine ­| Designs Manager/ Mental Health Advocate

Intellectual Property Office | Concept House | Cardiff Road | Newport | South Wales | NP10 8QQ

Tel: +44 (0)1633 814475 | Email: tracy.hourahine@ipo.gov.uk

      www.gov.uk/ipo­­

IPO | Making life better through IP

Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office

 

 

[AY Mod]

26 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

 

There's an irony that some of the business assets, according to the liquidator, include competitors' models (in different scales) which were purchased for 'examination purposes'.

[Ravenser]

28 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

These are the registrations, but no-one is sure exactly what they mean. Dave's original suggestion was that he could register the shape of a loco and no-one else could touch it. The next day, he claimed that wasn't the case. Subsequently, I believe that it may have been explained that a "land grab" in this manner wouldn't work.

 

And , as we established in the DJM Announcement thread, the O2, 1361, J94, 14xx and Class 71 registrations were made more than 12 months after the release of the model - and so are invalid anyway , all other considerations set aside

[Ravenser]

10 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

The below is reply from registered design service and it appears they don't understand the concept that a model is a copy of a real thing!

 

I hope that someone can make sense of the below?

>

To:marksaunders2000@yahoo.co.uk

‎13‎ ‎May at ‎07‎:‎45

Dear Mr Saunders,

 

I am writing in reply to your email whereby you are seeking information regarding the scope of protection relating to three Design registrations owned by David Jones Models.

 

To clarify, a registered design protects the visual appearance of a product, as set out by section 1(2) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA):

A design can protect the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product of its ornamentation.

 

Upon filing an application Rule 5(2) of the Registered Designs Rules 2006 (as amended) requires that an applicant specify ‘the product to which the design is intended to be applied or in which it is intended to be incorporated’. This is also known as an ‘indication of product’. In this instance the applicant has specified the designs are to be applied to the following products:

               6043481 – OO gauge class 92 electric locomotive

               6043479 – OO gauge class 71 electric locomotive

               6043225 – Model railway locomotive

 

You will however note from Chapter 7.06 of the Registered Designs Examination Practice Guide that the indication of product pursuant to Rule 5(2) does not limit the scope of protection. It is merely required as part of the application process to enable the Office to classify the design for searching purposes.

 

Further, section 7(1) of the RDA confirms that a registered design gives the proprietor the exclusive right to use that design, or any design, which does not differ in its overall impression:

The registration of a design under this Act gives the registered proprietor the exclusive right to use the design and any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

Section 7(3) of the RDA also applies:

In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether a design produces a different overall impression on the informed user, the degree of freedom of the author in creating his design shall be taken into consideration.

 

Whilst I have outlined the relevant sections of the Act and Rules which you may wish to consider I cannot comment on the scope of protection relating to the registered designs. This can only be determined by a court or relevant authority. Equally, I am unable to provide legal advice and therefore cannot advise what rights a registered design confers upon its owner. You may wish to contact an IP legal attorney who can help with this.

 

Should you wish to seek legal advice, you may contact The Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (CITMA ) on 02071016090, 5th Floor, Outer Temple, 222-225 Strand, London, WC2R 1BA, or the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) on 02074059450, 2nd Floor Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD.

I have checked the online system and can confirm that design number 6043225 is showing images of the design registered on the system.

 

Your sincerely

 

Tracy Hourahine

 

Tracy Hourahine ­| Designs Manager/ Mental Health Advocate

Intellectual Property Office | Concept House | Cardiff Road | Newport | South Wales | NP10 8QQ

Tel: +44 (0)1633 814475 | Email: tracy.hourahine@ipo.gov.uk

      www.gov.uk/ipo­­

IPO | Making life better through IP

Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office

 

 

 

I've underlined the rather startling job title of the lady who replied to Mark Saunders .

 

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "mad inventor"....