Until I visited the Liverpool Maritime Museum recently, I'd no idea that the “Registered Design” process even existed. As far as I understand it, without going into the same sort of detail and level of innovation that is required to justify a patent, you can register a design, focusing on the shape and appearance of the item, as an aid to prevent competitors copying your product… |
||
…it's effectively a form of copyright. |
||
Detailed below is a batch of BAYKO design registrations, all dated May 5th, 1949, which were granted to Plimpton to protect parts [not previously featured in either of the patents' documentation] from being copied. |
||
The date is a little strange, as some of the parts concerned were actually launched onto the market some 11 years earlier, non-the-less, Plimpton clearly took the question of 'copy cat' products seriously at this time. |
||
The images below, shown against a pale yellow background, show photographs of the “Registered Designs”, complete with their seals, held in the Liverpool Maritime Museum. |
||
|
||
The document shown against a pale blue background [courtesy of the Public Records Office] was processed as a “Registered Design” at the same time as the other 9 items, but for some reason the Balustrade didn't even rate a mention in the correspondence held by the Liverpool Maritime Museum. |
||
The individual documents below need no further introduction, so will get none… |
“Registered Design” #858,341 - PINNACLE ROOF |
Perhaps surprisingly, there is no mutual cross reference to #858,352, the Pinnacle Platform. |
“Registered Design” #858,344 - SPAN |
“Registered Design” #858,345 - DOME |
“Registered Design” #858,347 - TURRET [Long] |
Presumably Plimpton received advice that there was no need to register the other three Turret shapes - this would suffice. |
“Registered Design” #858,348 - WALL BRICK |
|||
|
“Registered Design” #858,350 - BAY WINDOW COVER |
|||
|
“Registered Design” #858,351- BALUSTRADE |
|||||
|
“Registered Design” #858,352 - PINNACLE PLATFORM |
||||
|
“Registered Design” #858,353 - CRAZY PAVING |
I wonder where the mid 1950s change to the double nipple version sits in this respect? |
“Registered Design” #858,354 - END BRICK |
The list of potentially innovative parts not included in these registrations is quite lengthy. The lack of any basic Roofing components may be related to the BAYKO Patents, but not so the others : - |
|
► |
Canopies. [either style] |
► |
Corner Bricks and Full Corner Bricks. |
► |
Curved Bricks and Curved Windows. |
► |
Garage Doors. [A.K.A. Opening Doors] |
► |
Opening Windows. |
► |
Pillars. [1-Brick, 2-Brick or 3-Brick] |
► |
Side Bricks and Side Windows. |
► |
Steps, Side Steps and Platforms. |
Finally in this train of thought, Mr. MECCANO apparently showed no interest in this area, unless you know better… |
|
One last piece of information on BAYKO's Registered Designs… |
||
…they each had to be renewed annually to maintain the protection… |
||
…for the princely sum of £10 each. |
||
On March 3rd, 1959, A. J. Davies of Liverpool, the patent agents that Plimpton used, wrote to remind them of the need to renew this protection [left]. |
||
The hand written note in the lower left corner makes clear Plimpton Director, R. J. Cowell's instructions not to renew… |
||
…the resultant letter [right] shows the intended rejection of the renewal and the necessary instructions to A. J. Davies.
|
||
Given the date this correspondence took place, and of course the decision itself, it all adds to the evidence of a climate of decline and retrenchment within Plimpton Engineering leading up to the MECCANO takeover. |
Below here are links to related info : - |
Click on any of the links below for related information. |
||