Help identify knives from tv show and movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kjosn

Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
30
Saw this knife in the new tv show Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan
and was wondering if anyone know the name of it

Skjermbilde_zps5skjxui2.png





I am also looking for the name of this one from the movie Rampage



 
Last edited:
Kjosn said:
Saw this knife in the new tv show Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan
and was wondering if anyone know the name of it

Skjermbilde_zps5skjxui2.png





I am also looking for the name of this one from the movie Rampage
Click to expand...
Not sure about the first one.
But the rampage knife looks pakistani.
I've seen this same handle and guard / pommel on multiple cheap Pakistani flea market knives , and I'm betting that's exactly what this is.
 
Last edited:
Not too familiar with the blade shape, but the handle & the hole in the guard makes me think Busse.
The second looks very Randall-esque. Doubt it is though.
 
yOwypcx.jpg


Looks like an Amazon Special the "TACTICAL FIXED BLADE D2 CORDURA" type. I mean why is there a thumb stud on a fixed blade? Maybe I am wrong. The profile is definitely...unique.
 
The hole in the guard of the Jack Ryan knife means that it's either a Busse I'm not familiar with or a ripoff company illegally using Busse's trademarked feature. Most likely the latter considering how much cheaper a ripoff would be to a tv production company than an actual Busse Combat knife. :poop:

Someone legally licensing the feature from Busse also isn't impossible, but I've never heard of it happening. I find it unlikely since it's probably their most useful tool in protecting their designs from cloners.

Perhaps Jaxx Jaxx or @Jerry Busse could shed more light on the subject.
 
Not sure you can trademark just any old hole. It has to be a specific variety/style of hole that is recognizably unique. If that hole above were trademarked, I'd find it somewhat farcical. Aside from that, trademarking a utility feature is horse dung IMO. That is a lashing hole.
 
Lapedog said:
Hmm. I thought the “talon hole” was a Busse trade mark.
Click to expand...
It is. However, unlike patents, copyrights, you have to actively defend your own trademark. That's why we send these pix of other knives bearing the "Talon Hole" to Jerry, who contacts the user to inform them that they are using his mark, and to ceast & desist using the same mark in the same shaded area as his copyright shows.TalonHole_TM-area-shaded.gif
 
eKretz said:
Not sure you can trademark just any old hole. It has to be a specific variety/style of hole that is recognizably unique. If that hole above were trademarked, I'd find it somewhat farcical. Aside from that, trademarking a utility feature is horse dung IMO. That is a lashing hole.
Click to expand...

Farcical...good word. However, the copyright (EDIT: TRADEMARK, my bad, NOT a copyright) issued, it exists, and it is an active trademark of Busse Combat Knife Company for decades now. Do you find the Spyder Hole on Spyderco knives farcical as well? :)
 
Last edited:
Jaxx said:
Farcical...good word. However, the copyright was issued, it exists, and it is an active trademark of Busse Combat Knife Company for decades now. Do you find the Spyder Hole on Spyderco knives farcical as well? :)
Click to expand...
Yes I do ! ;)
 
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what I find. The arbiter of validity for such a thing would be the courtroom. But no, I don't find Spyderco's hole nearly as egregious - it was patented for 17 years, then trademarked (trademarked, not copyrighted). In addition, it is quite unique and recognizable. It didn't really exist before they started using it. Can Busse say the same? No sir. It is even written so in his own application. To be fair, a trademark can be filed and granted on most anything if no one opposes it. Doesn't mean it will hold up to a legal challenge. Now whether someone would want to throw that money away is another story.

Additionally, I could care less if Busse trademarked such a ridiculous thing. I would just add it to my own knife if I wanted to, and he couldn't do a thing about it because I do not sell knives. The application for his trademark just shows a picture, BTW, nothing specifically stating the size, shape or placement of the hole or choil. Were I a judge, I'd laugh that trademark right out of the court if someone were to challenge it.
 
The Rampage knife looks like this one from Red Deer. An inexpensive import.

Of course, it could be an in-house made movie prop or a one-off custom that the Red Deer just resembles.



41GUxV7BBHL._SX466_.jpg
 
eKretz said:
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what I find. The arbiter of validity for such a thing would be the courtroom. But no, I don't find Spyderco's hole nearly as egregious - it was patented for 17 years, then trademarked (trademarked, not copyrighted). In addition, it is quite unique and recognizable. It didn't really exist before they started using it. Can Busse say the same? No sir. It is even written so in his own application. To be fair, a trademark can be filed and granted on most anything if no one opposes it. Doesn't mean it will hold up to a legal challenge. Now whether someone would want to throw that money away is another story.

Additionally, I could care less if Busse trademarked such a ridiculous thing. I would just add it to my own knife if I wanted to, and he couldn't do a thing about it because I do not sell knives. The application for his trademark just shows a picture, BTW, nothing specifically stating the size, shape or placement of the hole or choil. Were I a judge, I'd laugh that trademark right out of the court if someone were to challenge it.
Click to expand...
Good thing you're not a judge... ;)
Busse's is also a trademark, issued in 2000, again reissued in 2010 or thereabouts. Surely it has been challenged many times by now, but regardless it is an active & established US registered trademark for nearly 20 years. The hole can be any shape, size...as long as it is in the shaded area, it is a Busse "Talon Hole" trademark.
Yes, I guess you could make your own knife for yourself and what could he do? But go to sell them with a hole in the same area, and you'll eventually hear from Jerry about his trademark. :)
 
Jaxx said:
Good thing you're not a judge... ;)
Busse's is also a trademark, issued in 2000, again reissued in 2010 or thereabouts. Surely it has been challenged many times by now, but regardless it is an active & established US registered trademark for nearly 20 years. The hole can be any shape, size...as long as it is in the shaded area, it is a Busse "Talon Hole" trademark.
Yes, I guess you could make your own knife for yourself and what could he do? But go to sell them with a hole in the same area, and you'll eventually hear from Jerry about his trademark. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure that would be the case, as he certainly would desire to keep it if he filed it. However, I'm pretty sure that one would not hold up to much serious challenge. One of the several grounds for cancellation of a trademark (yes, even "incontestable" trademarks - which doesn't really mean they are incontestable) is "functionality." And a lashing hole could easily be proved functional if someone were serious about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine
 
I still can't believe all this trademark and patent Bs claiming someone can trademark a hole in something... Pfffy ridiculous.
 
Well, all I have to say is the "janitor" at Busse as he always answers the phone when I call is a very smart man. People recognize this hole as Busse and when other knives appear with it, people think Busse! Smart, Jerry Busse, smart! Also, when discussions like this arise, it also promotes the marvelous brand across different discussion boards, introducing Busse and it's magic hole to brand new potential customers! I wish I were this wise with my own brand and marketing! Jerry Busse, you are my hero and I look up to you! Let people challenge this magic hole and promote his brand more for free! My thoughts, FWIW.

-Will
 
eKretz said:
I'm sure that would be the case, as he certainly would desire to keep it if he filed it. However, I'm pretty sure that one would not hold up to much serious challenge. One of the several grounds for cancellation of a trademark (yes, even "incontestable" trademarks - which doesn't really mean they are incontestable) is "functionality." And a lashing hole could easily be proved functional if someone were serious about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine
Click to expand...
Folks have had 18 years to try. So far, no dice. :) ...Is it because it looks more functional than it really is? Is it because Jerry got to trademarking it first? Or is it because he is very well represented in these matters? Beats me, the mark stands. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top