RoyalSmokers disposable

Status
Not open for further replies.

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
65
Port Charlotte, FL USA
LOL, perhaps in the US. But we're talking about China here Bob.

Point well taken, counselor. True. No one knows how much money U.S. companies are losing because Chinese manufacturers simply ignore patent and copyright. It's as if legal protections do not exist. And, if not enforced, then they DO not exist. The Chinese laugh all the way to bank.

That is one sorry statement to make, isn't it?
 

jarvis

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 28, 2008
260
3
Tx
Ludo PMed me some links, and it looks like he does in fact have a registered trade mark for the manual switch for both the mini style and pen style e-cigs, also shown was a registered trade mark for the usb powered connector. He cannot post these publicly because the links also contained information and diagrams concerning yet to be released Janty products. So I understand now why he is hesitant to post them on a public forum, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a competitor e-cig company in china to start producing knock offs of the items. They also contained personal information he didn't want anyone getting a hold of.
Here's a paraphrased explanation given to me about the minifogger: it was produced by a contracted factory and is similar to the KR808, but has been modified (in ways he must keep secret so that he has a leg up on the competitors). The version you see on Royal smokers isn't the same as the modified version he will be selling, they just ripped off the paintjob. I don't know how much of that info was meant to be shared with you all, but there you go.
 

BettyRedondo

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 18, 2008
249
2
Bournemouth England
I can understand why Ludo doesn't want to post too much on here, I expect Royal Smokers stole the picture from this forum and copied it from that, and then also used it on their own site. It is such a shame that a company cannot even post a picture to let us know what their new products will be without someone stealing it and their creative ideas. I wonder if this company should be allowed to stay a member of this forum, only a week ago they were accusing forum members of being dishonest and ripping each other off, not the sort of company I would want to deal with.
 

CaSHMeRe

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 12, 2008
7,938
214
USA
Thanks for clearing that up Jarvis ... :thumb:

I do feel bad for Ludo and Janty though. China is a brothel of ripped product that's for sure ...

It is my understanding that CT are a trading company/wholesaler and not a manufacturer of e cigs, thus they are merely selling a product that is manufacturer by another company or am i missing something here.

CT/RS ... whatever you feel like calling them are indeed a Trading Company. They do not manufacturer ecigs ...
 

Bugiardo

Moved On
Nov 9, 2008
22
0
I am not sure I am following either of the above posts. perhaps the posters could kindly elaborate. I am sure it is interesting.

as for me to summerize the notable points of this thread so far:

Ludo announces that the KR808 which manufactured by kanger and is being distributed by royal smoker is a conterfeit of one of Janty's products which is being distributed illegally and announces that anyone purchasing this model will be commiting a criminal offence:

"Looks more like this fake company is blatent and illegal copying JANTY products! Please be aware that if you buy from this company, you commit a criminal offense by purchasing illegal and fake copies. Janty cannot be held responsible for any claims for these copies.

Please be assured that JANTY will ALWAYS announce OFFICIAL distributors on this and other forums."

He also plays the victim card:

"What it means for our end consumers if you buy these fake copies: We will need to fight these pirates through our lawyer and patent office and this is costly, therefore some models we announced will not be available in the near future because we will need to cut in our development budgets and bring these budgets over to our legal defense"

Apon being asked as to which patents these models infringe apon he clouds his response:

"You might want to take a closer look at our Mini Fogger and the picture they posted...

anyway, I'm not going into this discussion publicly as my lawyer asks me not to do so, to not damage the legal procedures we are undertaking as I speak."

Apon being reminded that he had previously mentioned that he once purchased and copied one of loong totem electronic cigarettes and decided not to put it to market becasue he thought it was unneccessary waste he responds that this was only research, not sales and that a company has the right to do to what ever they please with any device as long as they do not copy or sell it:

"That is called research! not sales!"
"no, you can open it, test it, do whatever you want with it for as long as it is internal research. Just do not copy it or sell it."

With further probing as to who manufactures his mini fogger and being shown the hypocrisy of his argument he becomes very shy and defensive and signs off by belittling the points raised as trolling. he also alludes to the fact that he had previously been aggrevated by a member on another forum whom he names though he is not 100% sure that it is the same member in this case as the current "troll" is surfing to the site using a specific proxy. he chooses his words carefully in a show of finesse.

"Not at al speechless, I'm just not answering trolls. Some trolls are called "denker" on other forums, some trolls surf through anonymous.org

I don't trust trolls."

When a post detailing the reason that Ludo was able to allude that the site was surfed to by a "troll" using a specific proxy, it is promptly deleted. the reason put forward in this post is that Ludo's has an inside partner called shawnp1, who moderates the forum, feeds him information, deletes posts for him and acts as his shill. further evidence to their allegience and their deeds are listed in this post.

Ludo is then further pushed to respond to his allegations that his new mini fogger has been counterfeited by Kanger and illegaly sold by Royal smoker. He is also asked to clarify that that Janty has it's own exclusive factory which manufactures it's own products as stated in his signature. he is asked if the minifogger is not a kr808 at all.

Ludo does not respond in the thread but instead chooses to reply in a private mail to the poster. The poster details some of the contents of this mail: the mini fogger(sic) was produced by a contracted factory and is similar to the KR808, but has been modified (in ways he must keep secret so that he has a leg up on the competitors). The version you see on Royal smokers isn't the same as the modified version he will be selling, they just ripped off the paintjob.

So here we have a change in temperment. No longer is Kanger accused of copying his mini fogger and royal smoker of illegaly distributing a fake janty. now the kr808 has been demoted to the status of only being similar to the mini fogger which is apparently produced by a another contracted factory. but does this mean that the legal proceedings are still underway against royal smoker? against kanger?

Did Ludo base the design of the mini fogger on the kr808? surely this would be below his high standards as he would only be allowed to do internal research on th kr808 not copy the design. But ludo has previously claimed that the kr808 is a counterfeit of his design. I am confused. Which is based on which ?

could it be the case that that his mini fogger is in fact a modified kr808 or just a kr808 with a "paintjob". Could it be similar to his KISS which has been claimed by some to be only a modified DSE801 with a manual switch, the manual switch element being designed from an open source project ?

Is Ludo busy hording patents so he can claim ownership of any electronic cigarette device out there and put the suppliers of similar re-badged generics out of business ?
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
65
Port Charlotte, FL USA
We'd understand this better if you explained your obvious vendetta against Ludo. Forum members know him only as an astute businessman responsible for the excellent Janty line. Much praise here for those products and liquids. No one knows you from Adam. Who are you? Who do you represent? Why do you write one of this forum's longest messages to say "I don't like Ludo"? Are you paid by the word?

What did Ludo do to you to throw you into such a name-calling rage as in your deleted post? I'm as puzzled as an earlier poster. You certainly haven't articulated anything that warrants your response. All we have here in a veer off topic into personal venting.
 

Soot

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 11, 2008
314
29
Belfast, UK
Bug - you've raised questions and posed answers to them. I'd like to hear Ludo's (and Shawn's) response before forming a view - though threats of legal action and defamatory remarks may have made this difficult.

From the outside this seems like a row between sellers all of whom want to make money out of us. What the product - or products - contribute to e-cig users I'd like to hear about. Neither side seems to actually make the product(s) in dispute but there may be issues of intellectual copyright.

Put simply, has Janty designed a better product that is now being copied?

If so, I'll pay the extra bucks and buy from Janty in the hope that they continue to invest in product improvement. If not and all that's involved is a paint job Janty's name will have been badly damaged. As for Royal - they too need an opportunity to reply. If Janty didn't own the design (that Ludo first posted here) then they should say so. Perhaps Royal is a victim of the manufacturers lack of integrity? If not - they are flagrantly and unfairly seeking to profit from the investment of others.

I agree with Cash's points - Janty's claim of patent ownership coupled with threats of legal action needs evidenced. This is a complex area of law that is slow, expensive, often fruitless but more often used as an unscrupulous means of claiming ownership when none is warranted. While taking the ideas of others is theft - claiming ownership of what doesn't belong to you is somewhere between colonialism and piracy.

I'm in no position to judge. I'm just Joe Soap looking for a reliable e-cig.

All of this kind of stuff is far better done privately between injured parties.
 

Bugiardo

Moved On
Nov 9, 2008
22
0
Tropical Bob, Do you not find it disturbing when a supplier is not playing a straight game? Should they not be called out for it? Perhaps it is because you hold Ludo in high regard that you find it difficult to lower your estimations of him. Perhaps you have misconceived him.

I represent nobody. I have no vendetta against Ludo and no reason to upset his business. I am raising these issues only by way of virtue. He knows he is welcome to respond. I second all of soot's comments apart from his last as I am not an injured party. I am also just a joe soap and I think it is reasonable that we should know the nature of the people whom we fund so we can better calculate our decisions.
 

Soot

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 11, 2008
314
29
Belfast, UK
Bug - I've no difficulty with you raising legitimate free trade questions or concerns - even if they focus on a particular supplier. I do however find it difficult to credit that you are just a Joe Soap since you seem equipped with background information that no Joe Soap could possibly possess.

Remember - TB & I both appear to have read your deleted post. It certainly threatened to damage my view of Ludo who has supplied me and many others an excellent product and service.

I'm not going to repeat the specific points you made in your deleted post other than to say they described a remarkably detailed knowledge of Ludo's employment history and his associates from which you made pejorative judgement. I don't know - and in all probability I don't need to know - the truth. What is near certain is that the law won't sort out a trade dispute like this - corporate responsibilities are only defended/prosecuted when there is serious cash value linked to a corporate identity. The e-cig industry is very far from this.

What I will point to is your method of argument that raises questions and then answers them.

For example, you post an explanation to the deletion of your post that names a moderator and alleges a nefarious reason. Yet - you don't know that moderator deleted your post - much less have you established his motive. Your allegation needs to sit against other possible explanations.

If I was moderating this site I would have deleted your post. It made unfounded allegations of a specific and damaging nature that the forum could have been sued for as a contributing party for having published. Libel is much easier to sue for damages on than corporate patent infringements - or even copyright infringement.

I stick with my earlier point - how is this helping the e-cig vaping community? I don't just focus that question on you - legal threats don't help either.

The parties need collect up their papers and take them to a judge - or think 'outside the box' by using commercial / marketing methods of response. Neither is appropriate here - particularly when it is the forum that will be exposed to the greatest risk of legal action for you to have your row here.

OK - my rant is over.
 
Last edited:

Soot

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 11, 2008
314
29
Belfast, UK
Corporations are held liable under their company identity - I'm sure you'll have noticed "Ltd." after many a company name. It means it is a limited company - it is the resources of this limited company that are exposed to legal action. For "Ltd" read "limited liability".

Limited liability cases for copyright or patent infringement first need to assess the resources and flexibility of their corporate target. If a company can easily fold then what's the point of hunting them down? Eg, if a company called "Majestic" folds and 2 months later becomes "Royal" - you're spending a lot of money chasing shadows - particularly if these companies cross national boundaries.

As for libel - the publisher bears a responsibility and this responsibility is often considered to be greater than the person actually making a damaging claim. The reason being that it is in the publication of the message to many people that the serious damage occurs. The publisher has a duty to check the validity of allegations it publishes.

Hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread