Vaughn Gear

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

10 minutes ago, Mroy31 said:

The thing with Vaughns magnets is that they don't actually hold the clips shut from what I can see. The magnets allow for super easy attaching, but it's still interlocking parts that hold the clip together. 

@Mroy31 - I have a Vaughn rep sending us some pictures. The main function of them is the easiest attachment of the pads as possible. According to the rep, the magnets lock into a channel and that's how they don't come loose. 

[gsmith0062 2]

Just google Fidlock and you'll see how it works. Its a very secure, metal on metal connection. The magnets just keep the two parts in place.

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

@gsmith0062 Are you referring to the RRC strap or the new V8E? I Did a search and this looks like RRC

[coopaloop1234 1,877]

12 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

@gsmith0062 Are you referring to the RRC strap or the new V8E? I Did a search and this looks like RRC

They're probably both very similar.

[gsmith0062 2]

1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

@gsmith0062 Are you referring to the RRC strap or the new V8E? I Did a search and this looks like RRC

I didn't notice the VE8 version and assumed it was the same as the RRC. My bad.

[Moose75 306]

Honest question here: how does CCM not go after Vaughn for this? It looks almost identical to that Lefebrve design.

PS: I'm a grown child that giggles every time at the VE8 logo for an obvious reason. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Moose75

[coopaloop1234 1,877]

4 minutes ago, Moose75 said:

Honest question here: how does CCM not go after Vaughn for this? It looks almost identical to that Lefebrve design.

PS: I'm a grown child that giggles every time at the VE8 logo for an obvious reason. 

There's probably enough of a difference where it wouldn't hold up in court? Or it could be opening a can of worms.

Proprietary things like logos, names, designs, etc, are far easier to go against where as a structural design that's been around forever and is all pretty similar through and through wouldn't. 

I mean, do you want each company to start being able to copyright every single detail where progress can become stagnant? Or is having each company be able to draw ideas from each other to try and one up each other better?

[loki1416 42]

@Murray Thank you for that, I did not know the SLRs had them.

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

@Moose75 - I believe it's okay to say that someone I know at CCM completely calls this a copy. It's the most blatant example to date and were surprised when they saw it. Coopaloop is correct above. I think it would be nearly impossible to win litigation. I would love to see it though!!! There are so many copies in our industry, that I feel a couple lawyers might actually spur innovation. 

Love or hate Bauer, this is why I have a soft spot for 1S... It was actually very different than anything else. 

[Xdave90x 46]

Hey guys i have some question on the epic 8606 pads

- How old are they?

- How do they size vs rbk larceny?

-Are they pro, sr or entry level pads?

thanks in advance?

[Hills 112]

24 minutes ago, Xdave90x said:

Hey guys i have some question on the epic 8606 pads

- How old are they?

- How do they size vs rbk larceny?

-Are they pro, sr or entry level pads?

thanks in advance?

I believe 2009.

Probably fairly similar. Sr pads.

[erik19 15]

On 03/01/2018 at 3:21 PM, SaveByRichter35 said:

They usually do, I don't see why these would be any different.

Checked with my local dealer and heard this back from Vaughn:

"Unfortunately, we can't do the VE8 with the vintage graphic yet, only the stock VE8 graphic is available at this point"

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

Good info. Not good news if you don’t like that graphic 

is that typical for Vaughn? Only the stock graphic for a certain period right after launch 

[Chenner29 526]

14 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

Good info. Not good news if you don’t like that graphic 

is that typical for Vaughn? Only the stock graphic for a certain period right after launch 

Yes, pretty normal.

I wanted a V3 pad with the V2 graphic back in the day.  I got shut down.

Single solid color is always an option.

[ULTIMA 173]

How many guys copied the 961 mask and made their "own" yet Bauer doesn't spend the time or energy going after those guys with lawsuits.

[Punisher Goalie 271]

Interesting question, @Moose75 @ULTIMA, but depends first on whether the design is protected or even protectable.

@TheGoalNet with all the cross-pollination between brands, would be cool if an industry insider could give us a sense of what aspects of gear are protected and not. 

[bunnyman666 1,087]

If you vary a design *just* enough, you can get around patents. One of my designs got ripped of when a buddy was showing it around at a trade show. They changed just enough elements, but the main idea was ripped off and I could not do SQUAT about it!

Edited January 6, 2018 by bunnyman666

[SaveByRichter35 947]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:37 PM, erik19 said:

Checked with my local dealer and heard this back from Vaughn:

"Unfortunately, we can't do the VE8 with the vintage graphic yet, only the stock VE8 graphic is available at this point"

Give it time.  Did you ask about a retail option or as a custom order?

On 1/4/2018 at 10:09 PM, TheGoalNet said:

Good info. Not good news if you don’t like that graphic 

is that typical for Vaughn? Only the stock graphic for a certain period right after launch 

For the most part.  Though I ordered my current set when the V6 first dropped and I wasn't given any flak about it.

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

close up of the V8E strapping 

[djtendy 15]

On 1/4/2018 at 4:53 PM, Moose75 said:

Honest question here: how does CCM not go after Vaughn for this? It looks almost identical to that Lefebrve design.

PS: I'm a grown child that giggles every time at the VE8 logo for an obvious reason. 

On 1/4/2018 at 5:00 PM, coopaloop1234 said:

There's probably enough of a difference where it wouldn't hold up in court? Or it could be opening a can of worms.

Proprietary things like logos, names, designs, etc, are far easier to go against where as a structural design that's been around forever and is all pretty similar through and through wouldn't. 

I mean, do you want each company to start being able to copyright every single detail where progress can become stagnant? Or is having each company be able to draw ideas from each other to try and one up each other better?

On 1/4/2018 at 6:06 PM, TheGoalNet said:

@Moose75 - I believe it's okay to say that someone I know at CCM completely calls this a copy. It's the most blatant example to date and were surprised when they saw it. Coopaloop is correct above. I think it would be nearly impossible to win litigation. I would love to see it though!!! There are so many copies in our industry, that I feel a couple lawyers might actually spur innovation. 

Love or hate Bauer, this is why I have a soft spot for 1S... It was actually very different than anything else. 

I haven't been active on the forums because I am in law school, but I saw this topic on @TheGoalNet's Instagram and had to chime in.

While I'm only in my second semester of law school, litigation is tremendously expensive and probably not worth CCM's time. This is also a super-cool opportunity for me to apply my Intellectual property notes to hockey content. I am literally copying my notes from my classes, this is Canadian law. I am in no way giving legal advice, but rather just applying the legal steps regarding copyrights and trademarks (that are readily accessible to the public) to the current hypothetical problem.

For CCM to win in a litigation re: trademarks, they'd have to establish 2 criteria:

1) The mark has to be distinct

2) Mark has to be used

--> These two elements would be satisfied if CCM proves their distinct trademark on the shape the burden would be on CCM to prove "passing off" (when a company represents its businesses/services as someone else's benefit from using a similar mark) by satisfying three elements

1) A reputation acquired by the plaintiff (CCM) in their goods, name, mark, etc. (this would probably be satisfied in court because CCM's longstanding, non-changing look of the 590)

2) A misrepresentation by the defendant (Vaughn) leading to the confusion (or deception) (this is based on an objective standard, and the courts would ask "would a reasonable person notice the difference and would mistake the Vaughn glove for a CCM? - to the reasonable person, probably not. For gear nerds like us, sure - but we are not "reasonable persons" according to the law)

3) The misrepresentation causes damage to the plaintiff. (CCM would have to show that they actually lost money in sales and that instead of people buying their 590, they are moving to Vaughn's 590. The only way this is possible to prove is if you see a massive amount of pros switching and the ability for CCM to document this. Otherwise, no damage done.)

Unless CCM has a trademark on their 590 design, none of this matters. I thought the V7 XR was a great alternative to the shape of the traditional 590.

And if we shift the discussion to Copyright, Copyright protects expression only, and not ideas, schemes, systems, artistic style. 

For CCM just to establish that their material is to be copyrighted, CCM would have to show two things:

1) The work is original (literary, dramatic, musical or artistic)

--> Originality does not mean unique; The work has to be a product of an author's exercise of skill and judgment. 

2) The work has to be "fixed" in some type of tangible medium -- Copyright springs into existence at the particular moment it is written down, recorded, etc.

Infringement is a different story. CCM would have to show that:

1) There has been copying

2) If copying, did the infringer take a substantial part of the work? and

3) Has there been consent by the copyright owner to the reproduction?

Theoretically, CCM could prove these 3 steps fairly easily. However, similar to the trademark, unless CCM established a Copyright on the 590 shape, Vaughn is free to do whatever they wish.

[TheGoalNet 1,319]

Wow @djtendy coming off IR and right into challenging Bouch’s shutout record!

One other detail I just learned? This glove does not break indentical to the 590. It’s supposedly between 580 / 590. 

Maybe this might fall into the category of Pro Choice’s 961 clone. It’s  very similar and clearly modeled after it, but it does have its own spin on things? 

[Moose75 306]

4 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

One other detail I just learned? This glove does not break indentical to the 590. It’s supposedly between 580 / 590. 

This sounds like something I don't need but will buy anyways lol.

[SaveByRichter35 947]

So its a 585 break? 

[southpawtendy48 452]

Vaughn never specifies the break... so who knows? 

[estogoalie 255]

On 1/6/2018 at 8:04 PM, djtendy said:

A misrepresentation by the defendant (Vaughn) leading to the confusion (or deception) (this is based on an objective standard, and the courts would ask "would a reasonable person notice the difference and would mistake the Vaughn glove for a CCM? - to the reasonable person, probably not. For gear nerds like us, sure - but we are not "reasonable persons" according to the law)

Here here, I'll drink to that.