lightweight with pockets for all of your travel necessities
The SCOTTEVEST and TEC® Case against AyeGear
AyeGear is a Glasgow, Scotland-based company that blatantly copied the clothing system of SCOTTEVEST (SeV) and TEC-Technology Enabled Clothing® (TEC) and sells it as AyeGear’s own. SCOTTEVEST is currently in litigation against AyeGear to defend SeV’s intellectual property rights and the livelihoods of SeV’s 20+ American employees.
While it is conceivable that two musicians could write materially similar songs, or that artists could draw the same inspiration from the zeitgeist, what TEC and SCOTTEVEST are experiencing is a clear-cut case of illegal copying by AyeGear. Theirs is not the work of an aggressive competitor; it is a shameless knockoff.
Before reading further, we suggest you watch this video by UK Blogger Documentally. We think he sums it up really well in this blog post and this video:
Here is a brief history of the product in question:
On April 23, 2010 the founder of AyeGear purchased a Classic Travel Vest from SCOTTEVEST. This is the receipt (with personal info redacted).
This vest was copied in nearly all of its features – both structural and design – and manufactured for sale as the AyeGear vest. See below for the point-by-point comparison.
AyeGear’s vest went on sale several months later, and was joined in late 2011 by a jacket version, the “AyeGear 22,” which is also a direct copy of SeV’s products.
When SeV first became aware of AyeGear’s infringement, the patented Personal Area Network (PAN) was not explicitly shown in images on their site. Upon contacting AyeGear, SeV was (falsely) told that AyeGear’s vest looked similar to SeV’s, but did not include any intellectual property violations, which was a flat out lie.
SCOTTEVEST ordered an AyeGear vest to examine it and found 25 features that were directly copied from the SCOTTEVEST Classic Vest, including the TEC® PAN. The vest does not only look like a SCOTTEVEST in very specific ways that violate Trade Dress laws, but it essentially IS a SCOTTEVEST, albeit a cheaply made imitation with a different brand name attached.
These are the features AyeGear copied:
Design and feature similarities:
1. Patented Personal Area Network (PAN)
2. External design: same pattern used
3. External zipper pull shape
4. Internal zipper pull shape
5. Extendible key holder
6. Water bottle loop
7. Placement of internal logo tape
8. Design & use of eight embroidered gadget icons
9. Design of “CollarConnectTM” feature
10. Interior contrast color piping
11. Color of loops and stitching for PAN
12. Chamois holder in eyeglass pocket
13. Handwarmer pockets x2
14. Change pockets inside handwarmer pockets x2
15. Napoleon pockets x2
16. Pen pockets x2
17. Camera pocket
18. Glasses pocket
19. Memory card/USB pockets x2
20. Travel documents pocket
21. iPad pocket
22. BudBucket pockets x2
23. Clear touch pockets x2
24. Clear ID pocket
25. Back pocket (including the water bladder loop)
Almost our entire, proprietary pocket structure, both placement and design:
Frankly, the points of differentiation are not particularly flattering to AyeGear:
There is no pass-through from the back pocket, preventing its intended use
The “clear touch” pocket material innovated by SeV has been replaced by a thick and ineffective substitute plastic
AyeGear markets the very specifically-designed BudBucketTM pockets near the collar of the vest– intended to hold earbuds - as coin pockets, showing their inherent lack of understanding of the design and utility of SeV’s product
Interior lining is a static-prone fleece material vs. the smooth, customized material used in SCOTTEVESTs
Their exterior material is not Teflon®-treated
SeV uses gadget-safe, magnetic closures on some pockets to help keep pocket contents secure
AyeGear uses a “left-handed” aka European style center front zipper
AyeGear has purposefully participated in illegal and unethical copying of SeV’s products, causing confusion in the marketplace
SeV doesn’t mind competition, but AyeGear has not attempted to improve upon or seek inspiration from SeV’s products – they simply knocked them off
Patent or no patent, these are unethical characters at their core, involved in illegal activities