Chinese clones of Chinese brands

palonej said:
Not really sure Purp, but I'd guess either can hurt a company.
Click to expand...

I dont really feel that way. Counterfeits hurt things because a companies reputation for quality could be harmed if the knife is poorly made. But a clone by definition has no logos and would not be confused easily with the real thing. I think that is what sal and eric talk about in that video.

One other thing that bothers me about this conversation when it comes up is how some companies are tolerated that sell clones. No one ever talks bad about blade hq but they sell all sorts of clones on the bladeplay site. Again I have no problem that any of you may disagree with me. I respect everyones views on this even if I may not happen to agree. Bit i just find its so targeted and pointed that some of the players are not getting their fair share of blame.
 
Last edited:
Sergeua said:
Hey guys is this a good throwing knife? it's out of elmax I think it should be tough.
The tanto point provides additional strength I think.
It's priced like a quality throwing knife should. I know I wish the hardware was torx.
mct1147.jpg

Yes. I am hijacking this thread :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...
Dahum, that's one of those banana knives I've heard about!
 
palonej said:
Yup!! Sal has stated many times that clone Enduras & Delicas almost put Spydie out of business.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I heard that story, but that was in the 90s.
Watch that video at around 7:46, they state clones without the logo are less of a problem (for now), it's more about the trademark violation.

Hackenslash said:
It's rampant entitlement that fuels cloning.
Click to expand...
For some, probably. For me it was trying out new designs at first, reviews later.
The amount of different knives that went through my hands at that short period of time is amazing and if those were all genuine - it would probably exceed $20k by now. I mean I could sell all my clones (as clones) and buy like 5 high end knives (I might still do that one day), but I'm glad I learned so much about knives in general from those.

Hackenslash said:
If human cloning becomes totally OK I'm sooooo gonna get me a Brazilian underwear model...
Click to expand...
This thread is over after that statement, everyone forgot about the clones and rushed to the nearest bathroom ;)
 
PURPLEDC said:
there is no law currently in place that says copying a design is actually stealing and thus wrong. Patents and trademarks sure, don't touch that stuff
Click to expand...

It's not just "patents-and-trademarks or nothing". There are other protections which are significant.

1. Copyright covers works of sculpture and architecture, to the degree that photographs of architecture have been deemed a violation of the copyright on a building's design. The Berne Convention essentially exempts authors of creative works from having to file for copyright, meaning the very act of publicizing a creative work causes a copyright to come into effect. I don't know whether copyright has been tested on knife designs, but it's arguable that certain knives are sculpture.

2. There are design patents which are different from normal ("utility") patents. These cover ornamental, non-functional industrial designs — things not eligible for a utility patent — and are distinguished by having a number prefixed with "D". The USPTO database currently shows 1951 design patents with "knife" in the title, including 45 assigned to Spyderco!

3. Many countries have laws covering trade dress, such as the Lanham Act in the US, which makes it a crime to "cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive... as to the origin [or] sponsorship" of an item. As with copyright, there is no requirement to file or register for trade dress protections under Lanham.

All in all, the law substantially frowns upon the whole business of clones and counterfeits. I think it's just not worth the effort for our friends at Spyderco or other small makers to fight these battles, when the most likely outcome is a whack-a-mole import ban against a single foreign company. But let's not mistake that for the clones and counterfeits being on solid legal ground.
 
First off, the matter of guns and design is a false equivalence. Either credit is given ie. Kimber calls a gun a 1911 because its is following the pattern, but saying "Hey, this is our version of a very old design, and this is what you can expect to get" which is fair, it credits the designer since by this stage its pretty well common knowledge as to the lineage. Or its a flat out copy, and guess what? lawyers. Knives are the same, someone can say "this is my version of a kephart, or a nessmuck, or a bowie" and if someone asked I bet that there are other knife patterns that could be done the same, if they were out of production, and permission was sought if feasible, and CREDIT GIVEN, then all good. As for the shifting blame, from manufacturers to consumers, no water to be held here man, just moving the goalposts.
 
ThePeacent said:
I sure do! The Kershaw OSO Sweet is around $60 shipped here in Europe, or bought from local stores, and I got this one for 1/8th of the price and works flawlessly, takes a wicked edge and looks like the real deal

The reason why we Europeans buy so many SRM, Enlan, HARNDS, etc. They cost $15 shipped tops, while a RAT, KaBar Dozier or Chinese Kershaw is usually over $50 here.
Click to expand...

Maybe I made an unfair assumption, and if I did, I apologize. I do know that the EU has had troubles harmonizing the IP laws of the member countries, and seems focused on EU products rather than overseas stuff. I also know that when I was in germany, I saw a lot of fake knives at what would have been otherwise reputable looking stores, small hunting shops usually. You mentioned cost. I live in Australia, so for me most knives cost right around listed MSRP of USD as though the USD and the AUD were one-to-one.

So I thought, maybe Europeans don't care as much about IP, and maybe cost is a factor that lets you decide that you will buy clones. If that is the case, then I stand by what I said, I disagree, but I'm not you, so carry on. If I was wrong, and those are not your reasons for buying clones, then I apologize for assuming things.
 
vanadium said:
It's not just "patents-and-trademarks or nothing". There are other protections which are significant.

1. Copyright covers works of sculpture and architecture, to the degree that photographs of architecture have been deemed a violation of the copyright on a building's design. The Berne Convention essentially exempts authors of creative works from having to file for copyright, meaning the very act of publicizing a creative work causes a copyright to come into effect. I don't know whether copyright has been tested on knife designs, but it's arguable that certain knives are sculpture.

2. There are design patents which are different from normal ("utility") patents. These cover ornamental, non-functional industrial designs — things not eligible for a utility patent — and are distinguished by having a number prefixed with "D". The USPTO database currently shows 1951 design patents with "knife" in the title, including 45 assigned to Spyderco!

3. Many countries have laws covering trade dress, such as the Lanham Act in the US, which makes it a crime to "cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive... as to the origin [or] sponsorship" of an item. As with copyright, there is no requirement to file or register for trade dress protections under Lanham.

All in all, the law substantially frowns upon the whole business of clones and counterfeits. I think it's just not worth the effort for our friends at Spyderco or other small makers to fight these battles, when the most likely outcome is a whack-a-mole import ban against a single foreign company. But let's not mistake that for the clones and counterfeits being on solid legal ground.
Click to expand...

lots of stuff here. Much of it not really about knives.
 
vanadium said:
2. There are design patents which are different from normal ("utility") patents. These cover ornamental, non-functional industrial designs — things not eligible for a utility patent — and are distinguished by having a number prefixed with "D". The USPTO database currently shows 1951 design patents with "knife" in the title, including 45 assigned to Spyderco!
Click to expand...
I've seen Michael Walker address those kind of patents by saying that the design patents are pretty worthless (in comparison to utility ones), because a very small change gets around them.
 
vanadium said:
All of this is about knives.
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree. copyright would not apply to a knife. No it is not sculpture. Sorry. Its just not. The second design patents have been exceedingly cost prohibitive to enforce often times making them nearly useless as more money would be lost enforcing one than to just let things take its course. So If something Is nearly useless I don't really feel it applies. And even if a maker had the money and wanted to use a utility patent they actually have to do it to have that protection. And since virtually no one does it (with the exception of a couple production companies who can afford it) it also to me doesn't apply. The third has been proven even harder to enforce. Take PRS guitars. They were sued by Gibson guitars for making a model too close to its les paul model. It was ruled that because the PRS could never be mistaken for an actual Gibson that the similarities were fair use. Either way, even if some protections exist they are cost prohibitive or nearly useless if they aren't. If they were makers would use them and it would work but it doesn't. If you feel otherwise that's fine. I disagree and will continue to disagree. Because if real protection that knife makers could rely on then discussions like this would not need to take place.
 
PURPLEDC said:
So If something Is nearly useless I don't really feel it applies. … Either way, even if some protections exist they are cost prohibitive or nearly useless if they aren't
Click to expand...

You began this conversation by saying "there is no law currently in place that says copying a design is actually stealing and thus wrong". You're incorrect. Now if you want to change the subject, and say using those laws are impractical to leverage, that's fine, but you're changing the subject. I don't appreciate you saying my comment is irrelevant, not practical, not about knives, etc., when it's actually directly responsive to your original (incorrect) comment that copying a design is legal unless protected by patent or trademark.
 
vanadium said:
You began this conversation by saying "there is no law currently in place that says copying a design is actually stealing and thus wrong". You're incorrect. Now if you want to change the subject, and say using those laws are impractical to leverage, that's fine, but you're changing the subject. I don't appreciate you saying my comment is irrelevant, not practical, not about knives, etc., when it's actually directly responsive to your original (incorrect) comment that copying a design is legal unless protected by patent or trademark.
Click to expand...

Appreciate it, don't appreciate it, It really makes no difference to me. If you are looking for me to agree with you just because you read up on some laws on wikipedia that really have no real world application for the knifemaker (because if they did knifemakers would use them) then just know you are going to be waiting awhile. Sometimes people say things with implication. That implication being that the law be useful and enforceable and applicable. Another implication being that you can copy a design so closely that the human eye may not be able to distinguish which product is which yet you wont get dinged for copying on technicalities. It happens all the time and is why no one uses most of those things. You seem to think your treasure trove of knowledge is useful. And I stand by my position that those things really have no value in relation to knifemakers and protecting their IP.

I'm pretty sure I could find you more court cases where companies were able to prove they didn't copy a design close enough for those laws effect them. I'm sorry but knives are not architecture, they are not written bodies of work. The lanham act is simply the laws that govern trademark which if you don't have a trademark good luck enforcing it. Some protections you need to buy into. They are not just granted because someone created a product. And if you don't get them you simply don't have them. Either way, we are going to have to agree to disagree. But but but, no. Don't care.
 
Last edited:
vanadium said:
You said something was legal. I showed that it is in fact illegal. You called that irrelevant. Good luck.
Click to expand...
You showed nothing was illegal. You attempted to take several laws that either don't apply or would only apply under very few circumstances of which most companies would get away with it (because they in fact do get away with it) and present it as proof but its not. Its more complicated than that.

Either way. I still don't agree with you. You can either keep repeating yourself or you can get over it. Doesn't matter to me which. Bottom line is you can change a design ever so slightly that to the human eye you may think they are the same thing. But in a court of law you would have no chance of winning. And that has been proven countless times when companies sue each other.

You can copy a design so close that the "law" you think protects knife makers and thus makes copying illegal is extremely easy to navigate around. So easily your eye could never tell. So good luck to you. If you feel that your oversimplification of the law is definitive proof you are right then go ahead and believe you are right. But I'm not going to agree with you.
 
gadgetgeek said:
First off, the matter of guns and design is a false equivalence. Either credit is given ie. Kimber calls a gun a 1911 because its is following the pattern, but saying "Hey, this is our version of a very old design, and this is what you can expect to get" which is fair, it credits the designer since by this stage its pretty well common knowledge as to the lineage. Or its a flat out copy, and guess what? lawyers. Knives are the same, someone can say "this is my version of a kephart, or a nessmuck, or a bowie" and if someone asked I bet that there are other knife patterns that could be done the same, if they were out of production, and permission was sought if feasible, and CREDIT GIVEN, then all good. As for the shifting blame, from manufacturers to consumers, no water to be held here man, just moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Canik tp9 never gives credit to walther which is what it is closely based on. There are Many more examples but im not going to spend my afternoon finding them.
 
PURPLEDC said:
Canik tp9 never gives credit to walther which is what it is closely based on. There are Many more examples but im not going to spend my afternoon finding them.
Click to expand...
But the Walther itself is based on a Browning hi-power. Still false equivalency, since that is a patent long run out, and still doesn't justify counterfeiting knives. Also Cantik is selling the piece under their own name, not claiming you are buying a walther.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top