Double action sebenza

H

High-Gear

Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
170
I saw a converted "double action Sebenza" in the Exchange.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...ized-double-action-by-Butch-Valloton-infamous

Included is a letter from Chris Reeve threatening legal action if Butch Valloton continued customizing / modifying the knife.

This is the point I wish to discuss. What ground does a manufacturer have to threaten another aftermarket company to prevent them from modifying their product after sale? Imagine if Ford threatened Rousch or Shelby. I doubt he would have legal ground to stand on, but a large company can bully a smaller one because they can not afford to defend themself in court.


My initial impression is this was a poor move on Chris Reeve's part, but what do you guys think?
 
I see both sides, but look at the buck 110 and how many are those converted after the fact?? I see no real issue IMHO.
 
I'm not sure that Rousch and Shelby are good examples as they both work with Ford.

I guess it's CRKs prerogative to file the cease and desist if they, or their attorney thinks it's viable. It's an interesting question, and an interesting footnote in knife manufacturing history I suppose. I suspect these things occur more often than we think without us ever knowing so I'm not going to say that Mr. Reeves is out of line. If it wasn't a case of taking a relatively normally operating knife and making it something that is illegal in most parts of the country that it's primarily sold in I might say it's a bit much...
 
After a product is in my hands, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. I paid for it, it is now my property. On the other hand, reselling them for profit......... I don't know.
 
The issue is the fact that the knife was converted into an auto guys. CRK doesn't want his name associated with the illegalities of automatic folders.

Dear Butch

This letter is simply to put on record out conversation from yesterday afternoon. I am sorry to have upset you but I must to take care of the reputation and integrity of my company. My call was to preempt having to take legal action and I appreciate your willingness to cooperate with my request:

To confirm the gist of out conversation:
- You have worked on approximately 25-30 Sebenza Folding knives made by our company and converted them into a double action mechanism or automatic opening.
-Because this modification is a violation of the copyright of the Sebenza and because automatics are illegal in most States, I have requested that you cease doing these conversions.
-You agreed that you will stop making these conversion and that you would return the knife you are soon to start work on to its owner without working on it.

Again, I thank you for your cooperation and look forward to continuing out friendship of so many years.

With best wishes.

Chris Reeve
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am sure CRK sought sound legal advise before sending such letter and did not just shoot from the hip. This info and topic was directly between CRK and BV.
 
I can see where Chris is coming from. Someone buys his knife, modifies it into what he considers to be an unsafe condition and then resells the knife as a new product still under his name.
He could face product liability issues and erroneous warranty claims. Both problems which could threaten a small manufacturer.

High-Gear said:
Imagine if Ford threatened Rousch or Shelby. I doubt he would have legal ground to stand on, but a large company can bully a smaller one because they can not afford to defend themself in court.
Click to expand...

If you were to purchase new Ford's and dramatically modify them in a way Ford considered unsafe and then try and sell them as new cars through a dealership, Ford would be all over you like a cheap suite.

CRK's name and product were being brought into disrepute by Vallotton who radically modified the knives using the popularity of the CRK/Sebenza brand to increase his sales. CRK have a right to defend their name and reputation.
 
Yeah I can't imagine CRK just blatantly spit out legal threats. I've seen waved Sebenzas but I guess thats a little different...
Moxy's and Steven's theories are probably correct.
 
As I understand it the knives were supplied by the owners and should be no different than a guy buying a car and taking it to the speed shop and hoping it up to twice the normal horsepower.
Bottom line, a manufacturer should not have any control of whats done to a product after the sale as long as Butch wasn't buying them and then selling them after the conversion.
 
I would think that it would be a slippery slope to modify someone's actively patented/copyrighted products, just to turn around and sell them for profit. I know there's aftermarket products galore, but they're add-ons or enhancements, vice a modified and repackaged whole product. I see the correlation of high performance car parts, but those aren't whole products, they're subassemblies, and even under that caveat, if a company is going to manufacture a subassembly and market that product as a factory product, then they should probably have some form of agreement in place.

i.e. There's nothing preventing Edlebrock from making an intake manifold for a Ford, but, if they're going to stamp it "Ford Motorsport by Edlebrock", then they'd probably need to enter into a business agreement with Ford. Can Wilson Combat legally/ethically accept customer provided Sebbies to be modified with a starburst scale & WC logo and to repackage that product as a WC Star-Benza? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But, I would say that if they did so without an agreement/corroboration with CRK, that they'd be sliding down a slippery slope. Has nothing to do with the perceived safety of the mod or whether or not the product is illegal in some states.

A few here and there, perhaps not a problem. A bucket full, well, that may prompt a legal letter to halt. A full blown advertised production, well, that may result in swift legal action. Perhaps CRK is just simply serving notice to a knifemaker thats sliding down a slippery slope, and attempting to stop them from sliding down the mountain.

As an enthusiast, I don't have a problem modifying a product to suit my taste. But, I'm not about to rebrand it and sell it for profit, especially if it's been brought to my attention that I am, or about to cross the line.
 
Here's a quote from Mr. Reeve from a couple of years ago on the subject. Those who haven't seen it will find it interesting. I understand where he is coming from, and this particular part resonates with me:

Chris Reeve Knives said:
our industry is under enough threat already and I will not be party to giving the anti-knife lobbyists any further ammunition. The recent attempt to reclassify one hand opening knives as assisted opening, and the issues facing retail stores in New York at the moment are graphic illustrations of the threat to our industry.
Click to expand...


The whole quote:

Chris Reeve Knives said:
Back in August 2010, a forum member posted photographs of a Vallotton modified Sebenza and I made the following post.

I would like to make a few comments about the after-market modification of any knife made by Chris Reeve Knives. I completely understand that once the knife has been purchased, it is the owner’s right to do whatever he (or she!) wants with it. What I want to make very clear, though, is that any modification will void the warranty on the knife. We are occasionally asked to service a knife that has had third party work done to it and we charge appropriately for this.

I know there have been a few of our folding knives that have been modified into automatics. Two are mentioned here, but I believe there have been others. I want to state very adamantly that, as a company, we disassociate ourselves completely from these knives. We have never made automatics and will not do so for a very specific set of reasons. Automatics are illegal in the majority of states and under a wide variety of circumstances; the shipping of these knives is restricted by a slew of postal regulations; our industry is under enough threat already and I will not be party to giving the anti-knife lobbyists any further ammunition. The recent attempt to reclassify one hand opening knives as assisted opening, and the issues facing retail stores in New York at the moment are graphic illustrations of the threat to our industry.

These modifications to our knives bring them into the automatic category and I cannot state strongly enough that, not only are these knives out of warranty, we will not service them in any way. We simply will not accept such a knife in our shop.

This thread brings the subject of dual action modifications back into light. I want to state clearly that all modifications are a violation of copyright – this is not just my opinion but the statement of our legal advisor. The “dual action” modification changes the mechanism of a Sebenza to one that is illegal in most states of the Union. Regardless of how well the conversion might have been done, the reputation and integrity of my company is impaired when the products we make are converted into items that are largely illegal. I am adamantly opposed to such modifications, and I continue my long-standing opposition to automatic knives.

Chris
Click to expand...
 
I don't consider Chris Reeve Knives a "large company" at all. It has a prominent place in the industry due to the reputation it has gained through hard work and high standards, but it is minuscule in size compared to the industry giants. What keeps it a thriving enterprise is that hard work and high standards.

If Chris feels his reputation and thus his business is being threatened by individuals drastically modifying his products in a way that actually makes them illegal in many areas and might open the company up to legal action or even criminal prosecution he has every right to try and defend his interests.
 
It's about liability or the possibility there of. We've seen asinine prosecutors, like NY and Bloomberg's cronies go after companies. To bad we live in a world where we have to worry about that first.
 
I don't get it at all. You buy the knife, it's yours, if you want it converted to an Auto, it's your $400+ knife, your legal issues , not CRK... Wether you like autos or not, they are legal in some place. Texas is close to making them legal to carry. If CRK gets called on the carpet, they have a track record of not making or sanctioning their knives as autos. It's on the owner, like a modified car or gun. Bart
 
Seems pretty clear to me. CRK doesn't want any association with an illegal product.

If by some stretch were they to be brought to court would they be free and clear? Sure, but who wants to go through that process?

It's a smart company covering their butt. Not as if these are after market scales or an acid washed blade, its a mod that is not legal to own in many areas so the whole argument of its my $400+ knife and I'll damn well do what I please doesn't really cover the point.

Seems pretty cut and dry.
 
Chris says you can do whatever you want after you buy the knife, but it voids the warranty. I personally would never modify a knife into something that I can't carry and use, that defeats the purpose but to each their own. I think CRK's problem came from the fact that lots of these conversions were being made, it was not one person making modifications in their garage. As stated above, Chris has no issue with extra scales and anodizing. This is a legal issue
 
RiverRat84 said:
Seems pretty clear to me. CRK doesn't want any association with an illegal product. Seems pretty cut and dry.
Click to expand...
While I agree that CRK's contention is primarily to cover themselves, I don't necessarily think that it's as cut-dry as not wanting to be associated with illegal products. Why do I think that? Well, most of his folders (Large Seb 21, 25, TiLock, Zaan) all have blade lengths in excess of 3", technically making them illegal in many states and even more so illegal in many counties within some states that don't (as a whole) even have a 3" restriction.

As quoted by BLADE_SICKness, it is very clear to me that CRK doesn't want to be associated with autos. But, I think there's more to it than that, perhaps a culmination of disassociating himself with autos, contention that another company would stamp their logo on his knife without an agreement and maybe even just simply sending a message to folks not to infringe on his products. Imagine if 20, 30, 200 shops across the country and in other countries started doing the same thing with products with his name on it?

Either way, IMO it's a prudent move for CRK to protect their interest and make their intentions know early, before it escalates into a major, potentially universal battle.
 
Concerning the blade length they do offer a small Sebenza and Mnandi. It is a pain for those with length restrictions that have to miss out on the other products.

However, autos are more widely illegal than blade length restrictions and considering that I can see why CRK doesn't want one of their products to be modded into one.
 
I don't know why there isn't as much outrage about the "clones" that show up from china that are NOT CRK. If CRK has a moral objection to autos then they should not make them. Impuning every company that does, and everyone who carries owns one seems small minded. The more demand there is for modified to autos , the more people will provide them. That's America.There are a lot of places in America where they ARE legal. Bart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top