Keninshiro; your point is well taken; if a liscensee makes an identical product, it may deserve the same name; consider the Argentine M1927 Colts, made under license from Colt. These were identical to Colt 1911A1s.
This was NOT the case with BM. The knives they made were not of the same quality, nor made of the same materials as the Emerson knives. What was linen micarta on the Emersons, was some sort of fiberglass or plastic on the BM's. The Ti bolsters of the Emersons were not to be found on the BM's. Further, the workmanship was much cruder on the BM's, which, to be fair, were designed to be about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Emerson. The action of the liner lock was more variable on these BM models (970 and 975) than on any other BM models I have ever examined.
BM was allowed, IIRC, to use the name Emerson in their advertising. They were NEVER allowed to use the CQC designation. Therefore, what you have is a BM 970 (I forget the alphabetical designation for the Ti blade).
The Tantalum Carbide (carbides are molecules composed of a metal and carbon) is applied along the entire side of the blade, not just on the edge. The idea is for the harder TaC to prolong the wear of the edge.
The knife you have is of a rather specialized nature; it is designed for use around magnetically discharged ordnance, as Ti tends to generate negligable eddy currents when moved in a magnetic field. The only other advantage is corrosion resistance.
As a general purpose knife, it suffers from the softness of the Ti blade, despite the TaC coating. Its' magnetic properties would make it difficult to detect by metal detectors, but I cannot mention such things on this forum, so disregard the above.
I still have about half a dozen BM 970/975s, if anyone cares for one.
Hope this helps, Walt