Bonzer Rip-off

Erik

Supportive Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,508
Location
Michigan
Name
Erik
A few days ago, Chuck Monson from Rotovac stated, “Eriks Zipper patent is on his reversable round glides. He did not invent nor did he patent the dual port concept. Dual port was patented in the 70's and has since expired which allows anyone to make, use and sell it.” In my opinion, his comments about what the Zipper’s patents cover versus what is included in his Bonzer rip-off are not accurate. In fact, none of the claims of the two Zipper patents are simply directed to carpet cleaning / vacuuming device having dual suction ports, nor does the existence of the Koellisch patent from 1973 automatically and necessarily render every possible use of dual vacuum ports in a carpet cleaning apparatus non-patentable and in the public domain. His statements to this effect are false.

Rather, the broadest (independent) claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 are directed to a carpet cleaning apparatus including several components, e.g., a vacuum head with two vacuum ports, an elongate solution manifold disposed between the two vacuum ports, elongate glides with suction openings, and with lower surfaces that extend below the bottom face of the vacuum head, etc., while the dependent claims of this patent identify other significant features, including a non-fixed handle connected to the vacuum head, adjustable means (wheels) for facilitating movement of the vacuum head over carpeting, etc. For at least these reasons, it is my opinion that the claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 remain valid/patentable in spite of the Koellisch patent, and it would be necessary for a Court/jury to otherwise determine that the claims of patent 7,761,955 are invalid before it would be accurate for anyone to state that use of dual vacuum ports on a carpet cleaning apparatus such as claimed in patent 7,761,955 is simply available for anyone to copy. Generally speaking, most patented inventions are combinations of known / existing components, but this by itself does not make the inventions unpatentable. Rather, it must be established that the specific combination of the known components as set forth in the patent claims is conventional or obvious, so that valid patents are issued on these combinations of known components. For example, with the Zipper there are unique considerations relating to the interactions of the dual vacuum ports, the glides, the non-fixed handle, and adjustable wheels that are certainly not made obvious by the Koellisch patent which does not include these other components, and is intended to function without these other components.

Thus, while it may be true that the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed and claimed in the Koellisch patent is in the public domain and may be freely copied by anyone, the same cannot be said about the Zipper’s Patent, which (in my opinion) is indisputably distinct from that of Koellisch. More significantly, it is my belief that Rotovac is not copying the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed in the Koellisch patent, but is more copying the Zipper Wand, which is covered by the claims in the patent.

In my opinion, the initial construction of the Bonzer copied many features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, including a vacuum head with dual vacuum ports arranged in front and back of cleaning solution discharge chamber, the arrangement of discharge nozzles in the cleaning solution discharge chamber, glides which are slidingly fitted into the mouths of the vacuum ports, retainers which keep the glides secured to the vacuum head, etc., and have since copied other features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ brand, including a non-fixed handle and adjustable-height wheels attached directly to the rear of the vacuum housing, which have an important functional relationship to the dual vacuum ports and glides that is in no way disclosed or suggested by Koellisch. I believe, the Bonzer is copying more and more of the features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, which are not in the public domain, with the apparent intention of completely copying every feature of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ short of its unique, reversible glides. WHERE IS THEIR CREATIVITY??? It’s a shame that so many features/character are identical.

Also, Chuck from Rotovac claims, “Our goal is to make more effective and affordable cleaning technology available to the thousands of Rotovac customers around the world. Prior to developing the Bonzer, Rotovac attempted to become a distributor for Zipper but were denied. We believe the Bonzer has improvements over the Zipper and also offers a more affordable choice for our customers.” The Bonzer is NOT more effective and affordable cleaning technology than the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™. While the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ may cost a bit more to purchase, their high quality and precision construction assures more reliable, long-term use. As far as Chuck’s claim to being denied to distribute the Zipper- at the time he asked, we were not in the position to have distributors. Our product was fairly new and we couldn’t produce the amount of Zipper Wands for any distributor, it was nothing personal. Although, I guess the next best thing is to steal someone’s idea since you can’t distribute their product! (Not sure where he was going with his distributing statement)

Please read Koellisch’s patent and see the differences for yourself:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...3,747,155.PN.&OS=PN/3,747,155&RS=PN/3,747,155
 

FredC

Village Idiot
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
27,129
So....your attorney is all over this right? And you're just letting us know?

You know that posting your opinions on a patent claim doesn't do anything right?


That if we just went by what people claimed their patent covered the zipper wouldn't have glides?

edit: I am no patent attorney but after reading the Koellisch patent (and citations) it seems to me rotovac is safe. We'll see...........

US3747155-2.png US3747155-1 (1).png

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3747155-2.png
 
Last edited:

Captain Morgan

Supportive Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
604
Location
Maine
Name
Bill Morgan
First time I saw the Shear Dry I thought it was another version of sapphire scientific's upholstery tool until I looked again.

Couldn't the same argument be made that Rotovac ripped off the SS idea too?

I was off the boards for a good long while, but was there much of a fuss about those unique similarities?
 

ronbeatty

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
1,437
Location
Altoona,PA
Name
Ron Beatty
Erik has taken the time to perfect the Zipper, something that everybody but Aerotech and Butler won't do. Most manufacturers in our industry let their customer be their r and d department and fix issues only when they get bad press. I have never been impressed with any of Roto what ever products, I doubt they will ever get the copy close to the quality of the original Zipper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lint Basket

Papa John

Lifetime Supportive Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,893
Location
San Francisco, CA.
Name
John Stewart
I'm beginning to think the whole patent process is designed solely to enrich lawyers and create tax revenue. I was happy when Apple and Samsung decided to stop suing each other and put that "Lawyer money" to good use.
I also think that it should be illegal to "shelve" a patent so that the market cant use it; Such as Texaco did with advanced battery technology.
maybe the patent process's time has come and gone? There's nothing to stop China from searching patents and copying the ideas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dan and ronbeatty

Old Coastie

Supportive Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
7,504
Location
Heart of Dixie
Name
Stephen
I love my Zipper. I love my Devastator wand. I love my Rotovac XL. I love my Cimex. I love my Cleanco.

I also like my 1 oz of Saiger sauce.
It's on the mantle over my fireplace. Right next to Chavez's picture.

Butt kissing for another lousy free ounce. Mark, send him a jar and let me know what it cost. I cannot bear to see a Bama man grovel...
 

Desk Jockey

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
64,833
Location
A planet far far away
Name
Rico Suave
First time I saw the Shear Dry I thought it was another version of sapphire scientific's upholstery tool until I looked again.

Couldn't the same argument be made that Rotovac ripped off the SS idea too?

I was off the boards for a good long while, but was there much of a fuss about those unique similarities?
Yep poorly done rip by the same company. That tool is notorious for spraying where it shouldn't.
 

Cleanworks

Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,426
Location
New Westminster,BC
Name
Ron Marriott
The problem is, not does Rotovac have a legal right to copy the Zipper, (They may have, it is yet to be determined) but do they have any moral or ethical right to copy a small businessman's idea and capitalize on it. They may be in the right legally, we'll have to see but otherwise it looks like they are the typical American businessmen who don't give a shit about anything except the bottom line and while some people applaud that attitude, I think it sucks and I for one will be BOYCOTTING Rotovac big time. I will not be looking for a 360I with or without a brush head and in fact if I need another re I will probably be looking at a trex or trex jr or maybe a hoss. I would buy a ss upholstery tool instead of Rotovac's cheap copy. I would encourage other mikey boarders to do the same thing. Yes I realize that they pay for advertising all the rest of that crap but someone has to take a stand for the little guy sometimes.
 

Cleanworks

Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,426
Location
New Westminster,BC
Name
Ron Marriott
its almost comical really......

just out of curiosity where do you stand on the Mitee upholstery tool....their fans?
When it comes to large companies battling it out, may the best one win. When they rip off the little guy, it just rubs me the wrong way. It would be like Coit going to my customers and saying, you know that Cleanworks, we can clean just as well or better for 2/3 the price. It might not be illegal but it is highly unethical
 

FredC

Village Idiot
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
27,129
would be like Coit going to my customers and saying, you know that Cleanworks, we can clean just as well or better for 2/3 the price. It might not be illegal but it is highly unethical

What if Cintas did it?
 

Cleanworks

Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,426
Location
New Westminster,BC
Name
Ron Marriott
What difference does it make who does it. Cintas has tried some of my strata buildings and failed so far. They are about 50% cheaper than I am.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom