Dragons' Den is an entertaining TV programme as so often those asking for cash for their ideas are naive, but sometimes the experts do get it wrong. Shaun Pulfrey's Tangle Teezer® is an example.
A year ago he asked for £85,000 in return for a 15% stake in his new hairbrush. Its teeth are designed to flex just the right amount to minimise tugging while smoothing the cuticles, says a story on the invention. An experienced London hairdresser, Pulfrey had thought of the idea 15 years ago but only made a prototype in 2004. All the dragons dismissed it.
A few weeks ago, Boots agreed to stock the product at 600 stores. Turnover (largely on the Internet, at £9.95) is already £800,000 annually, a quarter of which is profit. It looks as if the dragons missed out on a nice profit.
I had a look at the intellectual property behind the idea. In March 2005 Pulfrey applied for a European Community trade mark for the name, probably his most powerful selling tool.
In March 2007 he applied for a British patent, which was published a week ago as a Hair care device.
Then in April 2007 he applied for a Community design, one of the drawings of which is shown here.
In October 2007 he applied for design protection in the USA with American "design patent" D576804.
Finally in January 2008 he filed for a US trade mark/ trademark for the name. There may be other applications waiting publication, such as, perhaps, an American patent application.
The difference between designs and patents is, broadly speaking, that the former protects the appearance while the latter protects how it works. He used Marks & Clerk, a firm of patent attorneys, to advise him on his strategy and to write the applications.
A problem for anyone interesting in foreign protection is that this must be sought within 12 months of filing for a patent, or within 6 months of filing for a design. "Filing out of convention" by missing those deadlines means that your own domestic filings can be used to show that the idea is not new. Many who might be interested in filing abroad do not (yet) have the finance, or are not certain of product appeal, and therefore decide not to gamble on filing. Failure to file in a country means that the idea can be used there by others.
Hi Steve, I thought that the dragons did not invest because an almost identical product existed. Actually meant for horse grooming, but could obviously be used on peoples hair. In your opinion should the patent have been granted and is it not worthless/meaningless?
or does changing the use create a new invention/patent?
I know it’s not too important, after all, he got the sale with Boots, and if the original company didn’t see the opportunity then more fool them.
But I notice they aren’t yet sold in Tesco, could it be that Tesco are producing their own similar brush and cutting out the "inventor" ?
If so, can he clame against them realisticly?
Posted by: James Drury | 30 October 2008 at 17:39