Federal Court Documents Reveal 3M's Post-it Trademark and Patent Sticky Notes Deception

In a stunning legal revelation, recently found Federal Court documents have exposed a web of deception surrounding 3M's iconic Post-it notes. The company's trademark and patent claims, once considered sacrosanct, now stand on shaky ground due to alleged fraudulent practices.

By Stephen Justice - March 10, 2024

They're the bright squares adorning countless desks and refrigerators – a symbol of fleeting thoughts and everyday organization. But beneath the cheerful facade of 3M's iconic Post-it Notes lies a shocking web of deception, revealed in recently uncovered Federal Court documents. In a startling legal disclosure, recently unearthed Federal Court documents show the 3M's company's trademark and patent, the very foundations of its sticky note empire, now crumble under the weight of alleged fraud. In a startling legal disclosure, recently unearthed Federal Court documents have laid bare an alleged web of deception surrounding the trademark and patent claims of 3M’s emblematic Post-it notes. Once deemed inviolable, these claims now appear to be on precarious footing due to purported fraudulent practices.

The Fraudulent Trademark and Patent Claims made By 3M and Art Fry:

The court records indicate that 3M’s asserted trademark and patent claims for Post-it notes are invalid. These claims, premised on pre-filing public uses, appear to have been secured through dubious means, rendering them unenforceable. Court records paint a damning picture. 3M's Post-it Notes trademark and sticky notes patent allegedly obtained through deception aimed at maintaining a market monopoly. This deception raises serious ethical and legal concerns, and a jury must determine the full extent of damages and potential antitrust violations stemming from 3M and Art Fry's fraudulent actions.

Alleged Fraud and Unfair Practices:

During the prosecution process, 3M allegedly engaged in fraud and inequitable conduct. The company's actions, aimed at maintaining its monopoly, have raised serious ethical and legal concerns. A jury would be?tasked with determining the extent of damages and potential antitrust violations stemming from 3M's deceptive practices.

The Repercussions and implications of this revelation are extensive. The entities affected by 3M and Art Fry’s actions include:

• United States Patent and Trademark Office: The institution responsible for protecting intellectual property was unknowingly used as a pawn in 3M's scheme.
• Johnson & Johnson: A key competitor in the adhesive products market, Johnson & Johnson was adversely targeted and affected by 3M’s alleged fraudulent claims.
• Avery Dennison Co: Another participant in the stationery industry, Avery Dennison Co, finds itself ensnared in the aftermath of this legal dispute.
• Shanghai Magicraft Co., Ltd.: The fallout extends beyond U.S. borders, with Chinese companies also caught in the crossfire.
• Retail Consumers: Ultimately, it is the everyday consumer who bears the brunt and costs of such deceptive practices, and paid inflated prices due to 3M's suppression of fair competition.

A Call for Justice:

As the court proceedings progress, the question of restitution becomes increasingly pertinent. Will 3M and Art Fry be held accountable for their alleged ill-gotten gains? The return of these settlements and profits would serve as poetic justice—a karmic retribution for a company accused of bending the rules to its advantage.

Alleged Post-it Trademark Fraud by 3M:

The claim that 3M and Art Fry deliberately and knowingly appropriated a use date from another product—six years prior to the actual inception of the Post-it sticky note product—is nothing short of audacious. Such actions were allegedly orchestrated by 3M and Art Fry to secure an unfair advantage over their competitors. To then sue others for using their fraudulently obtained mark and patent adds insult to injury.

Federal Court Documents Indicate Evidence of Fraudulent Intent

Proof of Antitrust Actions:

3M's market share dominance in the sticky note sector, coupled with their aggressive lawsuits against smaller competitors, paints a troubling picture of potential antitrust violations. Economic experts are currently scrutinizing whether 3M's actions suppressed innovation and inflated consumer prices in the broader office supplies market.

Contradictory Applications:

3M’s trademark filings reveal a calculated pattern of deception. They filed applications for different forms of their sticky notes with inconsistent “first use” dates:

• 1975 Filing: (Serial Number 72,879) Post-it two-sided adhesive product. Claimed first use date: September 25, 1974.
• 1981 Filing: (Serial Number 300,787) Post-it Note single-sided pads. Claimed first use date: also September 25, 1974, but a Post-it note wasn't even a product until 1981 shown in its actual filing date here by 3M.

Conflicting Descriptions:

The claimed first use date of September 25, 1974 is incompatible with the distinct product descriptions and sold by dates. It’s materially impossible for a single first use date to apply to two products with such different properties product dates and applications.

Post-it Trademark Fraud by 3M:

The most glaring evidence of fraud lies within 3M's own trademark filings. Official USPTO documents reveal applications for different Post-it Note forms with conflicting "first use" dates. The dates are years apart, rendering the claims materially impossible. Legal experts emphasize that valid trademarks hinge on an accurate first use date corresponding to the specific product, making 3M's actions clearly fraudulent. If this weren't damning enough, internal 3M documents suggest a calculated decision to manipulate the system, with full awareness of Amron's earlier Press-on Memo product.

Independent Trademark Counsel Opinion:

“Based on my review of the TMEP (Trademark Manual for Examining Procedure), I conclude that 3M, as the applicant, may utilize the earliest date of ANY trademark use in the registration process. However, the date provided for first use must accurately correspond to the goods described in the application. In this case, the date 3M provided as the first use date was incorrect, considering the specific description of the goods. This discrepancy could invalidate the application. To address this, a cancellation proceeding should be initiated.”

Sticky Notes Patent Fraud By 3M and Art Fry:

Equally troubling is the accusation that 3M and Fry?failed to disclose known or should have known prior art in its patent application—a clear case of fraud. Worse still, the company allegedly litigated against others based on these ill-gotten patent claims. The legal system now grapples with the fallout from this tangled web of deception. 3M Company and Art Fry fraudulently acquired and enforced patents and trademarks related to Post-it Notes, resulting in unjust enrichment. 3M possessed or should have possessed knowledge of Amron's preexisting invention, Press-on Memo, a similar sticky note product published, disclosed to 3M's marketing department and commercially sold nationally in 1974.

Basis for Claim:

• Invalid Patent: Art Fry and 3M’s U.S. Patent No. 5,194,299 for repositionable pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet material is allegedly invalid. The USPTO examiner repeatedly issued final rejections during the application process, citing anticipation and obviousness based on prior art. Despite the rejections, and with presumed knowledge of Amron’s Press-on Memo sticky notes product, inventor and 3M employee Arthur Fry persisted, asserting a false lack of relevant prior art.
• Trademark Infringement: 3M’s enforcement of its Post-It Notes trademark demonstrates a blatant wilful pattern of suppressing competition and exploiting a fraudulently obtained market advantage.

Federal Court Documents Show Illustrative Examples:

• 1989: 3M successfully sued Johnson & Johnson for patent infringement regarding their Magic Notes product. 3M Company v. Johnson & Johnson, 875 F.2d 1418 (8th Cir. 1989)
• 1997: 3M sued Avery Dennison for trademark infringement over visual and functional similarities between Avery Dennison’s Sticky Notes and both Post-it Notes and Plaintiff’s Press-on Memo. 3M obtained a $44 million jury verdict (equivalent to approximately $111,408,629 in 2023). 3M Company and Avery Dennison Corp., 2000 WL 342926 (C.D. Cal. 2000)
• 2017: 3M pursued litigation against Guangzhou Horizon in China for alleged patent infringement.3M Company v. Shanghai Magicraft Co., Ltd., 2010 WL 3724748 (D. Minn. 2010)

Calculation of Restitution:

3M is to disgorge illicit profits stemming from the fraudulent patent and trademark, including interest and penalties. The $111,408,629 figure cited is based on financial calculations using the average annual 10-year Treasury yield as an interest rate proxy (data sourced from the St. Louis Federal Reserve) to Johnson and Johnson, Avery Dennison and Shanghai Magicraft. Totaling $1.7 Billion in compensatory and punitive damages plus 40 years of interest and penalties.

Karma Beckons:

The question now looms: will 3M and Art Fry be forced to return their ill-gotten gains? Restitution of these profits could not only be justice served but highlight the consequences of corporate greed.

The Fallout:

The fallout from this revelation sends shock-waves through the stationery industry and beyond:

As the courtroom drama unfolds, the fate of Art Fry and 3M’s iconic Post-it notes hangs in the balance.

The sticky situation just got stickier.