Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi all,

Following is a link to a news article regarding the up and down sides for Electrolux during this year's first quarter.

http://www.centredaily.com/business/technology/story/553091.html

Best,

Venson

I'm not sure how valid the Dyson DC02 ReCyclone claim would be. I remember it being detailed in the book by James Dyson, but I don't think it was ever on the market for all that long. TomG has one, I think? It's certainly a collectors item. I think the deal was that they'd collect your old Dyson, shot blast it, then melt down the plastic and remold it. It was then be fitted with a new motor and sold in a reusuable sports bag. Dyson are quite good at the moment - when you order direct from them (in the UK), they offer to collect your old vac and have it recycled. But I doubt they're shipping them back to Malaysia each time!

Electrolux can “go to town” with their “World first green claim”

Hello DIB:

Are you saying, then, that this claim by Electrolux is illegal because dyson made the claim first with the ReCyclone?  Or the claim is illegal because dyson made the first green machine even if dyson did not make the claim World's First green machine?  And/or both?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  I'm trying to understand what and why exactly is the supposed legal dispute that you believe dyson may/can have against Electrolux.

Carmine D.

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Based on the article that Venson posted about the Electrolux Green vacuum and Tom Gasko's post about the ReCyclone, I'm trying to determine the basis for a legal action that dyson would have against Electrolux.  I can't find one.  DIB is uncertain I think.  And you are wondering too. 

The score so far appears to be 3 doubters and 1 for a law suit [Tom Gasko].  Tom certainly hasn't made the case here [to me] that there is a breach by Electrolux worthy of a suit by dyson.  He's insinuated some things.  He's bluffed a few words and terms here and there to try and make some kind of case for a suit.  But lawsuits aren't filed based on insinuations and bluffs.  They're filed based on the law.  He hasn't stated the law.  Just some of his typical pro-dyson opinions and anti-Electrolux opinions.  Makes for entertaining Forum reading.  Not for valid lawsuits.  Especially when Mr. Dyson is paying $10,000-$50,000 an hour for hot shot NY City lawyers with 3 names in 3 piece imported silk suits. 

Carmine D

earthworm wrote:
You must have very limited experience with Dysons and have never owned one (common with Dyson bashers here), because it is far from a "cheap toy".  First of all Dysons are NOT the most expensive vacuum cleaner out there, in fact I'll go out on a limb and say Dysons fit into the "mid-priced" category very nicely.  Have you priced some of the high-end machines from independent-only brands by any chance?  Riccar, Simplicity, and Miele (to name a few) ALL have machines that cost well over $1000, with a lot of that money going to the dealer.  No Dyson costs nearly that much (and on top of that you would REALLY get a deal from an independent Dyson dealer), yet the performance is just as good (if not better) than any of the brands I mentioned above.  Enough said. 

-MH

CarmineD wrote:
Not to interject but the answer should be obvious.  Not only did Dyson produce the machine, they made the claim as well.  Check out the very bottom of the last page in this Dyson DC03 PDF manual.  Quoted directly:  "The re-cycled parts will then go to make new, Dyson Recyclone cleaners - the world's first recycled vacuum cleaner. 

Need I say more?

-MH

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Mole  and Carmine are two of my favorites.  Carmine and I can't agree, however I look forward to meeting him some day.  Mole and I have more in common with cars than vacuums.

This forum was so dulll until they joined in.  If we all agreed on the same thing there would be a lot of lost information.

M00seUK wrote:

Hi Moose,

I believe it does not matter how long James actually had his ReCyclone for sale to be the exclusive (for a period of time) or “worlds first”.  Worlds First is a phrase used very, very much by Electrolux and one must presume it helps sell lots and lots of product and/or helps create a powerful impression in the minds of consumers that Electrolux innovation leader.  There is plenty of room in consumer’s minds for another innovation leader – James Dyson.  Electrolux has many worlds firsts, I say Electrolux is indeed the “worlds first” at recycled vacuums second to Dyson.  Let the one time backyard inventor have his day in the sun and in the history books as the “worlds first” in recycling vacuums (assuming no others pre-date Dyson).        DIB

 

 

Google – Electrolux and “worlds first”

P.S.  Sorry if I come off somewhat intense in support of Mr. Dyson.  I know you like the guy too.

CarmineD wrote:

Hello Carmine,

I was indeed 100% uncertain if Dyson could/should stop Electrolux from profiting from the James Dyson exclusive accomplishment of “worlds first recycled vacuum”.  But after reading some literature from the FTC and NAD, indeed this is an untrue claim Electrolux makes.  Launching a brand new concept and pronouncing it as a “worlds first” is claiming exclusivity (and creativity), which it is neither and thereby is misleading the consumer.  It may or may not be more “green” than the ReCycone but that's irrelevant and that’s not what Electrolux is leading consumers to believe and thereby profiting from.  James Dyson climbed the recycled vacuum cleaner mountain first, not Electrolux.  NAD and the FTC guidelines that I have seen are clear on advertising truthfulness which benefits the consumer.  The Federal Trade Commission has the resolve and power to enforce truthfulness in advertising.  In theory…  Can or should James complain to NAD to try to stop Electrolux from advertising exclusive ownership of worlds first?  Yes.  Will NAD rule against this as a false claim?  Yes.  When is the best time for a lawsuit?  After a NAD ruling against Electrolux and only if Electrolux is in non-compliance with such ruling.  At least this was the path James took to stop Hoover from making the Fusion claim/James’ claim and tag line of No Loss Of Suction.

.

Unlike a patent lawsuit where 2 or more companies battle for the rights to manufacture and profit from widgets, the FTC is the big brother, and friend to the lamb-like consumer.      DIB

Hello DIB:

You raise very good points.  Very cogent arguments.  

Please, tell me which dyson vacuum did dyson claim to be the world's first recycled vacuum:  Was it the DC02 ReCyclone canister [cyclinder for our UK fans] and/or the DC03 ReCyclone upright which Tom Gasko quoted from the User manual?  It appears dyson used the World's First claim for both vacuums?  Tom said in his original post here [the one saying there would be a dyson lawsuit against Electrolux] it was the DC02 canister.  But his follow up post quotes directly from the DC03 Manual.  Apparently, he is confused too just as dyson.  Which do you say it is?   DC02/DC03?

Just because dyson made the claim first that either/both vacuums were recycled, does it have incontrovertible proof, defensible in a court of law, that the dyson vacuums were in fact made from recycled plastic?  This is the point M00seUK makes.  Or just dyson say so that they were?  Does it make a difference: To claim it but not be able to prove it?  In a court of law?

Electrolux can defend its World's First recycled vacuum claim.  It quotes the percentages of recycled plastics to the nearest whole number.  Electrolux takes the claim very seriously.  Even to the point of explaining the reason for the one and only dark "green" color.  Unlike dyson which offered the recycled vacuums in several consumer pleasing colors. 

Carmine D.

Here are links to Dyson’s current recycling program:

http://www.dyson.co.uk/support/weee.asp

http://www.dyson.co.uk/support/delivery.asp