# Will tshirt sublimation transfers paper work with mugs?



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

Is there really a difference as long as it is sublimation transfers paper?


----------



## HilcoAthletic (Oct 8, 2014)

As long as it is sublimation ink on sublimation paper you're good


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

Yes it will be, thank you


----------



## skdave (Apr 11, 2008)

For best results you need to use "hard surface release paper"


----------



## pmzirkle (Oct 5, 2014)

Always have worked fine for me as long as they are coated mugs.


----------



## allsport (May 5, 2014)

The most important thing is that the mug is poly coated.. The sublimation paper should work fine on your mugs.


----------



## lben (Jun 3, 2008)

I've never had a problem using my paper on either mugs, or shirts.


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

I think I let it bake to long, my blacks look brown. Is this the case?

Thank you


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

skdave said:


> For best results you need to use "hard surface release paper"


Listen to Dave. There is a reason his dye sub is excellent. I mostly do hard surface and that's the only paper I ever used. I have used it on poly shirts.


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

I used both sublimation paper and Mugs but the black is brown. So was that from the T-Shirt paper or did I leave it in the press to long? This was the first time I tried this machine.


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

Are you using profiles for your inks, or have you tested and adjusted colors. The inks I used when I printed my own transfers the ink company had ICC profiles and when used properly never any color issues. I know some here have done their own color adjustments here so hopefully they will chime in if your using inks that don't provide a profile.


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

No i'm not, I just thought it looked good on the screen and checked off high quality and mirror then print. No???


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

No and when it prints it will look faded, and not correct till pressed what inks are you using?


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

I bought the a sublimation printer and ink from cobra ink. So the color is trail and error???? Or once you get the right settings you save the profile? 

Sorry I am so new at sublimation


----------



## sben763 (May 17, 2009)

samconst said:


> I bought the a sublimation printer and ink from cobra ink. So the color is trail and error???? Or once you get the right settings you save the profile?
> 
> Sorry I am so new at sublimation


 Cobra inks support page has all the info you need. Not trial and error if you can follow the instuctions correctly. Richard is always willing to help also if you need to call him. it sometimes does take a bit to geta hold of him while other times you get him right away


----------



## samconst (Feb 23, 2007)

GREAT! Thank you for all the help!


----------



## lben (Jun 3, 2008)

You will find the correct ICC profiles for your ink and printer there on the Cobra website. Follow the instructions and your blacks will be black not brown or purple or greenish.


----------



## lilrowo (Feb 12, 2013)

What is "hard surface release paper"? TexPrint? or something else?


----------



## DPendable (Dec 21, 2012)

There is a reason why there are different types of paper. Hard surface, high release, tacky and so on. We use hr for textile printing but not on hard surface. I use hard surface for plaques and things like license plates because it doesnt shrink in the a press and cause ghosting. We use tacky hr paper for our socks due to the way we press them and then have to flip them. It prevents shifting of the socks during the filp. Now in a pinch we can use hard surface on textile without a problem but we wont use it in reverse. When I first started I would use just hard surface to make it easy on me. Now we have a printer for each style.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using T-Shirt Forums


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

lilrowo said:


> What is "hard surface release paper"? TexPrint? or something else?


 A good description is offered here on the right side of the web page.

https://cobraink.com/Transfer paper.htm


----------



## sapience (Sep 25, 2010)

If your blacks turn brown, your dwell time is too long...


----------



## yourlogomugs (May 12, 2015)

yes. i use 2 different papers for mugs and tshirts


----------



## SubliTEK (May 5, 2015)

cobra ink seems has no license from sawgrass.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

SubliTEK said:


> cobra ink seems has no license from sawgrass.


The Sawgrass patent '907 has expired 9/1/14. 

*But wow shocker you're a Sawgrass Dealer* LOL. 

The only patent litigated, _when it was in force_, was U.S. Patent No. 5,488,907

http://www.mgparrish.com/17711722614.pdf

Bold emphasis mine.

"Defendant Sawgrass Technologies, Inc. (“Sawgrass”) owns a number of patents that
relate to the application of heat-activated dyes through an ink jet printer. The patent at issue
in this case, the ’*907 Patent*, generally discloses a method of applying heat-activated dyes
onto a substrate by dispersing tiny particles of dye solid into a liquid ink which can then be
printed in the shape of a desired image onto the substrate with an ink jet printer"

All US litigation history related to inkjet sublimation inks were for USPTO '907.


Patent US5488907 - Permanent heat activated transfer printing process and composition - Google Patents

EXPIRED

Publication number	US5488907 A
Publication type	Grant
Application number	US 08/299,736
Publication date	Feb 6, 1996
Filing date	*Sep 1, 1994*


Patent Term Calculator | USPTO

Bold emphasis mine.

"In 1994 the US signed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act changed the date from which the term was measured. Because the term was measured from the filing date of the application and not the grant date of the patent, Congress amended 35 U.S.C. § 154 to provide for applications filed after June 7, 1995 that the term of a patent begins on the date that the patent issues and ends on the date that is* twenty years from the date on which the application was filed* in the U.S. or, if, the application contained a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 USC 120, 121 or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 154 was amended to provide term extension if the original patent was delayed due to secrecy orders, interferences, or appellate review periods."


----------



## SubliTEK (May 5, 2015)

Possibly not, i mentioned this with Inktec when i had conversation with their supervisor last month, they told me that sawgrass still have couple valid patents on hand and has years to come. and i just got news that J-Teck just renew another license agreement with them, there is no reason to do that if J-Teck can produce themselves.

http://impressions.issshows.com/dig...J-Teck3-Sign-New-License-Agreement-8729.shtml


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

SubliTEK said:


> Possibly not, i mentioned this with Inktec when i had conversation with their supervisor last month, they told me that sawgrass still have couple valid patents on hand and has years to come. and i just got news that J-Teck just renew another license agreement with them, there is no reason to do that if J-Teck can produce themselves.
> 
> Sawgrass Technologies, J-Teck3 Sign New License Agreement


As I have stated the only patent litigated was the '907 patent. The "Markman" trials only considered the '907 patent as the others were dependent on '907 being infringed before they could be infringed.

Suggest you read the results of the TOG vs. SG markman summary very carefully again.

The other patents are are "tied" to '907 (continuation patent) and became expired on 9/1/14 along with '907 or were not applicable to cheap desktop inkjet printers.

_If you can explicitly state which patent is still in force and applicable to the inkjet sublimation products Cobra or anyone else for that matter sells please do so.
_

What I do notice is the lack of mention _of any patent_ on the SG press releases, advertisements, product brochures, etc for the latest Sublijet HD inks, or the Virtuoso SubliPrinters. In the past SG was very quick to point the patents out, now those references seem to be gone.

I haven't seen every document out there, however, I find it _very odd_ that SG would now suddenly not mention patents protecting their product specifically on the products made after 9/1/14, which the Virtuoso and the inks now packaged for that printer today.

Of course don't you think that if they did that and claimed patents that were either expired or not applicable that they maybe would be in violation of US law? Hmmm

You sell HD inks, if there is a patent claimed on the package please publish those numbers here. 

*****************************************
*In fact if anyone has "HD" carts or a Virtuoso system it would be in the interest of all of us if SG is claiming patents. I have looked all over the net and see no patent reference on any SG products for the HD inks or the new printers that use them and these products were all released after 9/1/14.*
*******************************************

Older products won't count as the packaging could have occured before 9/1/14 such as "Sublijet-R".

I pose the question, why do you think that Cobra needs a license? Do you deem them infringing SG products? (which you sell LOL)


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

SubliTEK said:


> Possibly not, i mentioned this with Inktec when i had conversation with their supervisor last month, they told me that sawgrass still have couple valid patents on hand and has years to come. and i just got news that J-Teck just renew another license agreement with them, there is no reason to do that if J-Teck can produce themselves.
> 
> Sawgrass Technologies, J-Teck3 Sign New License Agreement


Also I failed to mention, Sawgrass has patents later than the '907 patent, the last litigation was with TOG in 2008 (which SG was forced to settle due to the Markman hearing going _against_ them LOL) it's possible that InkTech has a newer chemical in the ink that would violate _newer_ SG patents. It's also possible they don't want to BS around with lawyers and uncertainty and just would be cheaper to pay them off.

But the formulation of Cobra inks and most others out there existed before 2008 and only _new art_ can be claimed. Patents and "art" are only considered from filing or grant dates (which ever is applicable) and cannot include any "prior art". 

Now as I have stated please explain what patent Cobra is in infringing?


----------

