Cold steel vs CRKT suit and claims made by each

[bld522]

Now I may not be the smartest man in the world, but I do believe the crux of Cold Steel's complaint, had to do with false advertising.

Then why wasn't that the basis for the suit? Did you actually read the public record concerning the suit? If you did, what did the court say the suit was based on? And how was the suit concluded?

Ursa? Ursa? Are you still there?

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Yep. That comment was inappropriate, all right. :thumbdn: It's not the first inappropriate comment I've seen posted in this forum in the last day or two. I can't help but wonder if the moderator is too busy licking his wounds over the suit dismissal to keep a proper eye on what's being posted here.

I somewhat suspect it's more a combination of being relatively new to moderating, particularly since this forum didn't see anywhere near this much vitriol until the last month or two, and a vague worry about criticisms for being thin skinned if the mod responds.

I'm unhappy with CS over their course of action, but I'm fairly sympathetic to the mod here. This is pretty much the very definition of the no-win scenario. Moderate aggressively and you're a thin skinned tyrant, be more lassez-faire and you're negligent and licking your wounds.

 

[bld522]

I'm unhappy with CS over their course of action, but I'm fairly sympathetic to the mod here. This is pretty much the very definition of the no-win scenario. Moderate aggressively and you're a thin skinned tyrant, be more lassez-faire and you're negligent and licking your wounds.

Yes, I agree with that. I just have a personal issue with people who make derogatory statements and inferences about women. I can tolerate it in Whine & Cheese, but not here.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Yes, I agree with that. I just have a personal issue with people who make derogatory statements and inferences about women. I can tolerate it in Whine & Cheese, but not here.

Completely agree.

 

[Yo Mama]

A knife company suing another knife company. Leatherman v Coast, (for false advertising like Cold Steel v CRKT) is another example.


Your last sentence is a matter of opinion. I remember a person upset at Benchmade's practices, voice his opinion on the internet, and get sued by Benchmade for it.

What are you even talking about? When Benchmade sued for patent infringement when an unauthorized dealer was caught using model names?

 

[bld522]

One of the advantages of being around here for awhile is you get to know who's worth listening to and who isn't. I don't have to put people who aren't worth listening to on an "ignore" list. I either ignore them automatically or I assault them with the truth and they run away with their tails between their legs.

The most bothersome thing to me is that a lot of folks who aren't worth listening to don't seem to have any shame. They'll say anything to get their point across even when they know it isn't true. Confronting those people is a favorite pastime of mine although admittedly it's like shooting fish in a barrel. All I ever need to bring with me are the facts. That's not to say that I'm not wrong from time to time. All my pencils have erasers too. But when I am wrong, I step up and admit it quickly. I believe that's what having integrity means.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Just curious...do you boycott Spyderco, and only direct people to Benchmade?

??? In his last post, as a matter of fact, he suggested that he was encouraging people to look at CRKT.

The case was settle AND dismissed pursuant to the settlement.

According to the court papers, the suit was for false and misleading advertising and unfair competition through such advertising. No claim of infringement of a trademark was asserted. http://www.scribd.com/doc/268364363/Cold-Steel-v-CRKT#scribd

 

[bld522]

According to the court papers, the suit was for false and misleading advertising and unfair competition through such advertising. No claim of infringement of a trademark was asserted.

Really? So then why does the public record indicate that the case was brought for trademark infringement?

Here's the link to the public record you posted previously for reference:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public...v_Columbia_River_Knife_and_Tool_Company_et_al

The case was settled AND dismissed pursuant to the settlement.

Really? I don't see anything in the public record relating to a "settlement". All it says is that the case was dismissed. So where is your information about the settlement coming from? Or does the fact that everyone agreed to the dismissal constitute a "settlement" in your mind? And as we have absolutely no idea of what was contained in the "settlement", could it have been as simple as the parties agreeing to drop the action and go their separate ways? Nothing seems to have changed since the suit was filed. So on the surface, at least, nothing is exactly what appears to have happened.

 

[ursamajor]

So then why does the public record indicate that the case was brought for trademark infringement? Is "trademark infringement" a catch-all for any and all filings under the Lanham Act including false advertising?

Here's the link to the public record you posted previously for reference:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public...v_Columbia_River_Knife_and_Tool_Company_et_al

Also, I don't see anything in the public record relating to a "settlement". All it says is that the case was dismissed. So where is the information about the settlement coming from? Or does the fact that everyone agreed to the dismissal constitute a "settlement" in your mind? And as we have absolutely no idea of what was contained in the "settlement", could it have been as simple as the parties agreeing to drop the action and go their separate ways? Nothing seems to have changed since the suit was filed. So on the surface, at least, that's exactly what appears to have happened.

I don't know why the info on that page is errant. I read the summary of motions on the link you provided, and a stipulation was filed by CRKT to dismiss, but nothing from the court in as much as an entered judgement, or a dismissal from the court based on that stipulation.

Besides, even CRKT in their statement said that they will not be disclosing the terms of the "settlement". So clearly there was a settlement, and from the looks of it, a confidentiality agreement. If the case was just outright dismissed, then both parties would be free to discuss whatever they wish. By the mere fact that they say they will not " disclose the terms" (even CRKT used this verbiage) then there is something there.

But harping on the moderator here, to disclose facts of the settlement (which doing so could put him in contempt of court) is bs.

 

[bld522]

I don't know why the info on that page is errant. I read the summary of motions on the link you provided, and a stipulation was filed by CRKT to dismiss, but nothing from the court in as much as an entered judgement, or a dismissal from the court based on that stipulation.

You did notice that the case was dismissed, however. Did you not? If not, go back and look again. And what would cause you to believe that a matter of public record is errant?

As far as everything else you said, you're operating on nothing but assumptions. And mine are as good as yours are. So here's mine:

The parties shook hands, agreed to drop the case, signed an agreement not to discuss it, and left the room.

Are you suggesting it couldn't have come down that way? And if that's how it happened, wouldn't that constitute a "settlement"?

The only thing we know for sure is nothing has changed . . . at least not yet.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I previously posted a link to the Complaint so anyone could have seen what the case was about. The Complaint IS the definitive "public record" of CS's claims.

So to save the very minimal effort of clicking, here are the operative words of the Complaint filed by Cold Steel, Inc.:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLD STEEL, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,

vs.

COLUMBIA RIVER KNIFE & TOOL COMPANY, a business entity, form unknown; GB II CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, dba COLUMBIA RIVER KNIFE & TOOL COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-4166

COMPLAINT for:
1. False Advertising, Lanham Act section 43
2. Unfair Competition, California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff Cold Steel, Inc. (“Cold Steel”) complains of Defendants Columbia River Knife & Tool Company, GB II Corporation dba Columbia River Knife & Tool Company and Does 1-10, and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for false advertising section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and for violation of related California state law. These claims address the false and misleading statements in Columbia River
Knife & Tool’s published advertising regarding the qualities and performance of the company’s folding knives.

2. Columbia River Knife & Tool claims that locking mechanisms on its folding knives convert these knives into “virtual fixed blade” knives. This is a completely false claim. These knives cannot begin to match the strength of a fixed blade.

3. The claim that Columbia River Knife & Tool makes folding knives that convert into “virtual fixed blade” knives is an empty advertising slogan. The truth is that the locks on these knives will fail catastrophically when significant pressure is applied. The knives perform worse than many other comparably priced knives, and far worse even than lower cost knives manufactured by Cold Steel.

4. Cold Steel files this action to halt Columbia River Knife & Tool’s practice of making blatantly false claims about the strength of the company’s knives, and to compel the company to pay out the damages and unlawful profits it has earned by these dishonest tactics.

Apparently this court categorizes cases in a given way, and when someone saw the reference to the Lanham Act, which ALSO provides for suits for trademark infringement, it dropped the case in the "trademark" category. Other online services added "infringement" in their unofficial reporting without bothering to read the Complaint.


The disposition of the case was pursuant to a stipulation (agreement) for voluntary dismissal entry signed by the attorneys for both parties. This is a routine journal entry when a case is ended by mutual agreement:

STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) filed by defendants Columbia River Knife and Tool Company, Does, GB II Corporation.(Shlachter, Robert)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions
(a) Voluntary Dismissal.

(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

There are enough matters that are subject to legitimate differences of opinion without attempting to cause dispute over objective facts.

 

[bld522]

Apparently this court categorizes cases in a given way, and when someone saw the reference to the Lanham Act, which ALSO provides for suits for trademark infringement, it dropped the case in the "trademark" category. Other online services added "infringement" in their unofficial reporting without bothering to read the Complaint.

Thanks, Thomas. That would certainly explain it. Now all we have to do is wait and see whether the suit actually changes anything. And the only indicator we've got is whether CRKT modifies its "virtual fixed blade" claim in reference to its LAWKS and AutoLAWKS systems. They haven't changed it so far and my bet is they won't. But time will tell. Meanwhile those who are interested can keep track of developments on this page:

http://www.crkt.com/knifeinnovations

 

[ursamajor]

You did notice that the case was dismissed, however. Did you not? If not, go back and look again. And what would cause you to believe that a matter of public record is errant?

As far as everything else you said, you're operating on nothing but assumptions. And mine are as good as yours are. So here's mine:

The parties shook hands, agreed to drop the case, signed an agreement not to discuss it, and left the room.

Are you suggesting it couldn't have come down that way? And if that's how it happened, wouldn't that constitute a "settlement"?

The only thing we know for sure is nothing has changed . . . at least not yet.

I'm saying that a settlement happened, and that there is a confidentiality agreement. The dismissal was a part of it, but there was a settlement. What was the settlement? I don't know. As for the whole lawsuit, I am apathetic. My only issue, is seeing the piling on of the moderator. He is an employee of Cold Steel. I doubt he was the one to make the decision to file a lawsuit. I also doubt that he had any input on the settlement-hell I doubt his opinion was taken in to consideration at all. However, I am certain that he, along with every other Cold Steel rep, was told not to discuss the case, or disclose any info he/they may be aware of.

 

[bld522]

That's true. And it brings us back to the single piece of objective evidence we can actually rely on, namely the words "virtual fixed blade" as they appear on the CRKT site with regard to the LAWKS and AutoLAWKS safety systems. If those words survive, then I for one will conclude that CS gained nothing from the suit. After all, if we're in agreement that the suit was about "false advertising" and the "false advertising" remains, what other possible conclusion could be reached? And if those words disappear, I'll conclude just the opposite. So while we may not know the outcome of the suit in the short run, I'd say it will become very clear to us in the long run.

 

[Poleaxe]

You guys are worse then a knitting circle.

 

[bld522]

Whatever.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

You guys are worse then a knitting circle.

And you're stopping by the knitting to say hello.

 

[Jonslaught]

Ok enough of this philosophy talk about claims. I favor crude simplicity: CRKT has a flimsy LAWKing mechanism and CS sued them for sucking. And the case was dismissed because that is not a viable reason to sue. CS however got the word out on how bad LAWKS is (if folks didn't already know), while at the same time exposing themselves as jerks -- a thing we all already know to be true and come to expect. Like I said earlier, this aspect of CS has been dissected so many times, its scar tissue. This is the fact and the only philosophy.

 

[bld522]

LAWKS and Tri-Ad both work fine if you're not an idiot. But Tri-Ad works better if you are. And whether Cold Steel are jerks or some of the cleverest marketeers on the planet is open to discussion as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jonslaught]

I saw it.

But being an idiot can boil down to necessity. When your EDC must be tested, strength may become the most important thing. I EDC often the Kershaw Knockout in Elmax (Ellie). However, I have concerns about the steel partial frame lock's connection to the aluminum scales and I use it for average cutting tasks exclusively. In another pocket, I back Ellie up with Amy, my old model American Lawman with the steel liners for the tougher tasks the uncertain future may have in store on any given day. I would use a CRKT with metal scales for the lighter cutting, because I like their designs. I can extend that branch... I just wouldn't try to cut it with it.