What is the best process to fight a IP infringement claim in a way that will be taken well by Makerworld. Reading into this it seems like other members have had little to no luck getting models restored.
So far here are the steps that I have put together in preparation for putting together a counter notification…
Response to allegations with rebuttal
Screen recorded and timestamped runthrough of the CAD files used
Problem: Max 20MB limit on the upload limit that makes it almost impossible to upload the video
I can always put it in a ZIP file but I have very little confidence that they would take the effort to unzip the file.
Frankly, I think the only proof that should be required is the fact that the model was originally created in October when the person the made the report posted their model in November. (To clarify my model was still posted after their model, although it was most likely created before).
I just want to make sure I get everything in there since I only have one shot at filing the counter notification.
Thanks for the advice.
Edit: I will also complain that this stuff always comes through in the middle of the night. I love waking up to makerworld giving me a chore.
Were you told who made this claim? Can you view the report?
Like, username, company name? MakerWorld should really be transparent enough to share that information. We’re not talking about a usual report where it makes sense for users to be anonymous, but rather an IP dispute. According to that, the evidence should actually be presented to you by the other party.
Actually, just like every other website does…
Let me guess: MakerWorld doesn’t do that? You don’t know whether the other person has faked the evidence without having access to it.
Part of the process is getting the personal information from the other person. I am probably not going to share that because it has their legal name and email address on it.
So, yes. I know how is accusing me and I know what I am being accused of.
The issue is that I am only getting a little 3000 character blurb. They described the similarities, but was not able to explain in depth.
Side note: I hate that they have these little pop up boxes instead of opening up something full screen. It makes it a pain in the A to read over it.
In my country, the date of first publication - meaning the initial upload to any platform - is given significant evidentiary weight. It is considered a strong indication that the person who uploaded the work first is also the creator and therefore the holder of the copyright.
Of course, this presumption can be challenged by means of tamper-proof timestamps from CAD files or similar evidence. However, doing so is a very arduous and difficult process.
Thanks for the feedback. That’s great, and as I said, it wasn’t about who it was, but that it was communicated to you personally. But can I be completely honest? How can a report like this even be allowed? I don’t want to speak negatively about the model, either about him or you — but it’s only natural that they have similarities if they serve a specific purpose. It’s just like how battery boxes and cigarette boxes look similar.
I strongly doubt he has the right to do so; strictly speaking, it’s not even an IP case. MakerWorld only made it one because they approved it. If the argument is “that it serves the same purpose,” then 99% of the models here could be IP reported.
Sorry, but I don’t want to derail your topic. Just wanted to mention that.
To shorten the text, I would ask ChatGPT. I’m not a fan of AI, but it’s pretty good at that.
I am a layperson. However, if the complainant’s claims, which appear very detailed to me, were to be accurate, I could indeed recognize a potential copyright infringement here – unlike in the case of a simple battery box. I mean this in a completely dispassionate way and do not wish to side with either party, but merely to convey the impression of a neutral observer.
Bambu can make their own rules, and one of them seems to be “looks like”, so you need to play by there rules and answer their claims. Just forget about it being an “IP infringement", once you get past that you have a chance.
I’d drop the part attacking the validity of the other model, that just isn’t a thing.
As I said, I don’t want to take sides, but I doubt that anyone can claim IP rights at all. It is neither unique nor a new invention, nor does it copy a logo or brand. If anything, this would have to be reported as a copy, but not as an IP infringement.
MakerWorld would first have to check whether a patent exists, a right to protection. The application should have been rejected with the note: Incorrect approach: “If so, it would have to be reported as a copy.” and then a different review process would have to be followed.
In any case, it may be advantageous for the argument to mention that MakerWorld is full of such boxes and no one can claim IP protection - object too generic.
Imagine if they did that with all those fidget spinners.
…and if you think about it, such boxes existed even before 3D printing. This makes it even more questionable whether anyone has a right to them. As I said: unless someone copies a logo/brand, which is not the case here.
I know what you mean. I just would not use the word “Attacking”
If they are saying that a component of their design is protected, they are saying that it is a proprietary method to themselves. Although there are hundreds of other models that share similar design elements as @RetroSharky pointed out.
This post (the one I’m typing right now) is full of theory, conjecture and speculation.. but here’s how I think it works:
If you report a model the old way and MW sees the other user uploaded the SAME file they take it down and you get a “report successful”… but in cases like this were the person says it “looks like” their model they deny the report and tell them to contact them if they want to purse an IP report. If you contact them they email you the paperwork that the person who reported you filled out. Now they can skip some of those steps by clicking the “IP Report” button instead of "Report Model”.
(Theory →) I’m willing to bet if the person is willing to fill out the paperwork and give their personal info MW will take ANY model down no questions asked.
(More Theory→) I think that after MW gives each party the other parties info they expect you to take it up legally on your own. The crappy part of this is that they take the model down before stepping back from the situation.
Again, not an attorney, no hard cold evidence, just what I believe… I think they modeled it after the crazy Youtube IP takedown system.
Nothing would surprise me in the least. We have complained about the effectiveness and morality of the report system for a long time. This is nothing new to us.
My theory is that no one that processes the reports takes the time to compare geometry. But instead goes off a 30 second guess.
In my country, there is something called copyright protection, which exists in a similar form in almost all countries. This has nothing to do with patents or similar rights. Whether the box is used to store tampons or ammunition is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the design - the specific creative expression.
In this case, I would consider the very elegantly recessed latch and the specific design of the hinge to be a distinctive intellectual creation. I find this box genuinely very well designed, clearly superior to the many generic, interchangeable boxes visible in Retrosharky’s screenshot.
Whoever created this design automatically enjoys copyright protection for it. No one is allowed to copy the design or make minor alterations and then redistribute it without the creator’s permission.
If the complainant’s statements are accurate - which I cannot assess myself (!) - then, in my opinion, the chances of success for a counterclaim by Cincinnati Designs are close to zero.
That said, I generally find most of the complaints raised in this forum about alleged model theft rather ridiculous - for example, when someone claims to have been the first person to come up with the idea of disguising a surveillance camera as a 3D-printed vase with a hole. This case, however, is genuinely interesting by comparison.
Unfortunately, this is completely wrong because a certain level of creativity must be reached first, and rightly so. This is also regulated by law in many countries. Otherwise, anyone could have anything protected simply because they made it ‘more beautiful’ or ‘more attractive’. For example, you can’t protect a wristwatch, but you can protect the Rolex logo itself. However, Rolex does not have exclusive rights to wristwatches.
Or let’s take something else that also involves 3D printing: Lego! The interlocking bricks. Lego has protected its logo and its name - what is not protected are the basic bricks, which anyone can use, print, and even sell. Why? Because they have now been classified as a generic concept.
Unfortunately, some users still believe the modern fairy tale that, just because they have created something, they automatically enjoy protection. This is not the case at all when it comes to intellectual property (IP).
The threshold of “level of creativity” must be achieved; this is a mandatory requirement. Also known as TOO: “Threshold of originality”
For the whole thing i would agree, but if they made their own custom latch or hinge that was unique that part of it would enjoy copyright protection assuming its of a technical enough level, the rest of the box wouldn’t as that would be considered generic
So if someone were to replicate that part it would likely be grounds for a complaint
Ultimately i don’t think this is something that bambu would be qualified to dispute themselves and they have to treat the claim as valid unless the other person can dispute it properly or use the information they were given in order to get a legal decision made, they won’t however leave the “offending” model up on the platform as they still have to comply with the “safe harbour” rules in order to prevent themselves from becoming liable
Yes, absolutely, but you actually need a granted patent, you don’t get to just point at your invention and say “it’s the same mechanism” as an argument, there is no protection like that in the law. He needs a patent to enforce that kind of claim.
That why I’m saying trying to invalidate the IP claim of the other person by pointing out prior art is pointless and counterproductive, he doesn’t have an IP claim to invalidate. Going down that rabbit hole is just another way to lose.
If the other guy actually had a patent, Bambu is never going to reverse themselves, even if the patent is invalid Bambu is going to enforce it. So arguing that “this is unpatentable" is silly, there is no patent, and if they did ever get a patent trying to nullify their claim by proving prior art would be equally fruitless, it’s just not worth it to Bambu Lab to sort that kind of stuff out.
I completely agree. I did remove that section of the counter claim. But I do still think it is important (or at least important to me) to point out the hypocrisy.
The other party did list some very specific ways that your model is similar to theirs.
A sensible way to respond is to show that your model design was completed before their model was published. Or at least most of the features that they listed were already made during your design progress before their publication date.
If you can, take some photos that can show the features that they listed and the date of the design. Then provide a link to the zip file that contains the full video or a YouTube link. Make sure to point out the design features and the timeline.
An additional way if the following is true:
If the features that they listed are quite common, particularly if you can find some models that already had these features before the other party’s publication date, then you can say it is possible that both you and the other party took inspiration from similar models and neither holds the IP right.
BTW: MW is not a court. Don’t get too much into the weeds of legal rights. Decision that MW makes is administrative, for the purpose of running a platform. It is not a legal verdict.
