Infringement?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Edw00d said:
Trademark infringement would be if he copied a logo or name, which he did not.

What he's in danger of is either Copyright, or likely (if Busse has it registered) Design or Utility Patent infringement. (the Talon Hole use and positioning).

There are pretty strict distinctions between Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents. And it gets pretty messy with Patents, since there are two main kinds, Design and Utility, the former being more open to interpretation.
Click to expand...



I think you're mistaken here, I don't think there's anythhing copyrightable about a knife's design, and I don't think there are any relevant patents (or patentable aspects). What we've got here is an infringement on Busse's claimed (and registered) trademark in the "talon hole." There is no patent in the talon hole so far as I know (nor is there anything patentable about it, so far as I can tell); so to the extent Busse might have a protectable interest, would be in the trademark,
 
leatherman said:
Looks like a SHBA to me. Craftsmanship on the steel is nice, but the handle isn't quite up to par.

Not the first copy I've seen over seas, it seems they think that US trademarks don't apply to them. Best guess.
Click to expand...

The grind does look nice, but what is the point in having a choil if the secondary bevel stops a couple millimeters shy of it?
 
Yeah, definite copy. Like dericdesmond said though, at least he's got good taste. But, that's a blatent copy.

Speaking of infringments, has anyone seen Dark Ops knives (Vindicator and maybe the Interceptor)? Looks like talon holes to me, just wanted to get other opinions (I already e-mailed Amy about this, I don't know if Jerry has contacted them)
 
GregS said:
The grind does look nice, but what is the point in having a choil if the secondary bevel stops a couple millimeters shy of it?
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing, the definition of the small choil is ease of sharpening without hitting the ricasso. Kind of defeats the purpose huh?

Ranger did this with his first RD's, didn't take long for him to run that plunge line back a few mm's.
 
Edw00d said:
Again, please don't confuse Trademark with Design Patent. Willows did not stamp or print a logo with the image of a Busse looking knife with the talon hole. Trademark refers to a mark, which is usually a printed logo or displayed image, like on a website. The physical look of a design of a product is covered under a Design Patent. And could also be covered under a Utility Patent. But that is only IF they have been applied for and approved (which take forever).

Granted, I'm not saying it's nice of Willow to blatantly copy Busse knife designs. If Busse has the Patent, they can and will go after him. But just want to make sure people are barking up the right tree as far as legal jargon is concerned.

OK, carry on...
Click to expand...

Not a design patent, it's a trademark, just like the spider hole for spyderco. It's U.S. Trade mark serial number 76172212 and trademark Registration Number: 2679735. If it was a patent it would be filed under patents and be given a patent number.
 
JohnTheTexican said:
I think you're mistaken here, I don't think there's anythhing copyrightable about a knife's design, and I don't think there are any relevant patents (or patentable aspects). What we've got here is an infringement on Busse's claimed (and registered) trademark in the "talon hole." There is no patent in the talon hole so far as I know (nor is there anything patentable about it, so far as I can tell); so to the extent Busse might have a protectable interest, would be in the trademark,
Click to expand...

Last Visible Canary said:
Not a design patent, it's a trademark, just like the spider hole for spyderco. It's U.S. Trade mark serial number 76172212 and trademark Registration Number: 2679735. If it was a patent it would be filed under patents and be given a patent number.
Click to expand...

Yes, but does he have a Logo or Image with the Talon hole? A Trademark normally covers Words, Fonts, or Image representations that identify a particular Brand. So if someone created a brand called Kick Ass Knives with a logo of a Knife that looked similar to Busse Combat's knife with a talon hole, they'd be infringing. Same thing if they named a company called "Fusse Wombat" and used the same font as Busse Combat. It would look like a copy of Busse's Trademark and would be confusing.

Granted I suppose the overall look of the actual product could be interpreted as part of a Trademark, but strictly speaking the physical look of a product is covered under a Design Patent. An Image or Graphic representation used in a Logo to identify the company is covered under a Trademark.

http://www.legalzoom.com/design-patents-faq/design-patent-versus-trademark.html

Either way, whomever has the higher priced law firm usually wins. And I'm sure a quick cease and desist letter will intimidate a small timer to back down, regardless of what the law actually states.
 
Last edited:
That looks an awful lot like a SHBA (save for the handle butt) to me. Not exactly an 'original' design, IMO...
 
Edw00d said:
Yes, but does he have a Logo or Image with the Talon hole? A Trademark normally covers Words, Fonts, or Image representations that identify a particular Brand. So if someone created a brand called Kick Ass Knives with a logo of a Knife that looked similar to Busse Combat's knife with a talon hole, they'd be infringing. Same thing if they named a company called "Fusse Wombat" and used the same font as Busse Combat. It would look like a copy of Busse's Trademark and would be confusing.

Granted I suppose the overall look of the actual product could be interpreted as part of a Trademark, but strictly speaking the physical look of a product is covered under a Design Patent. An Image or Graphic representation used in a Logo to identify the company is covered under a Trademark.

http://www.legalzoom.com/design-patents-faq/design-patent-versus-trademark.html

Either way, whomever has the higher priced law firm usually wins. And I'm sure a quick cease and desist letter will intimidate a small timer to back down, regardless of what the law actually states.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's in the tradmarkia link I posted. It's a 'no word' trademark. It's not the overall look of the product, it's not covered under any patents. "Mark Description: The mark consists of a hole in the rearward portion of the blade."
logo-76172212.jpg

http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-76172212.html
 
Edw00d said:
Yes, but does he have a Logo or Image with the Talon hole? A Trademark normally covers Words, Fonts, or Image representations that identify a particular Brand. So if someone created a brand called Kick Ass Knives with a logo of a Knife that looked similar to Busse Combat's knife with a talon hole, they'd be infringing. Same thing if they named a company called "Fusse Wombat" and used the same font as Busse Combat. It would look like a copy of Busse's Trademark and would be confusing.

Granted I suppose the overall look of the actual product could be interpreted as part of a Trademark, but strictly speaking the physical look of a product is covered under a Design Patent. An Image or Graphic representation used in a Logo to identify the company is covered under a Trademark.

http://www.legalzoom.com/design-patents-faq/design-patent-versus-trademark.html

Either way, whomever has the higher priced law firm usually wins. And I'm sure a quick cease and desist letter will intimidate a small timer to back down, regardless of what the law actually states.
Click to expand...

bagofbricks2.jpg
 
Last Visible Canary said:
Yes. It's in the tradmarkia link I posted. It's a 'no word' trademark. It's not the overall look of the product, it's not covered under any patents. "Mark Description: The mark consists of a hole in the rearward portion of the blade."
logo-76172212.jpg

http://www.trademarkia.com/logo-76172212.html
Click to expand...

Again, Trademark covers a company Logo or Image Representation. Take Apple for instance. If someone creates a Smart Phone that looks like the iPhone, they won't get sued for Trademake infringement, they get sued for infringing on the Design Patent Apple filed for.

If someone created a smartphone that looks nothing like the iPhone, but has a logo on it with their name ("AwesomePhone", for example), but the printed logo on the phone is in the shape and likeness of an iPhone, then they are infringing on Apple's Trademark.

If they have a smartphone that looks nothing like the iPhone, but have a logo in text that has a similar font as Apple, and is called "eiPhone", Apple could sue them on Trademark infringement, since it's fairly close to looking like the "iPhone" Trademark look. But starts to tread into gray area.

Again, I could start a knife company called "Fusse Wombat". I would be legally fine as long as I don't use the same looking font as Busse Combat, or use an image of a knife with a talon hole as part of my Logo. (That is the part in the Trademark registration that is covered under Busse's trademark).

If I created a knife that looks exactly like Busse Combat's knife, but do not label it, or have a company name that resembles Busse Combat, I am in violation of Busse Combat's Design Patent (or Utility Patent, whichever they filed). If I make a logo as well that's used either on my website or stamped on the knife, that resembles the Talon Hole trademark, then I am in infringement of BOTH a trademark and patent.

I'm not saying that the guy is not violating the law. Just making it clear which one it is. There are very clear distinctions.
 
Why do you ignore everything we have told you? The trademark itself is the hole in the knife, that is the trademark as registered, not the image of a hole, or the hole plus the brand name, its the hole. If you have that hole in your knife you are violating the trademark.
 
While it's actually covered under both Design Patent and Trademark in some instances, A Design Patent is much stronger, and clearer in a legal sense.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/devices.html#shape

However in case law, Trademark from the Product shape is stronger when the general public recognizes the shape, and the general shape becomes iconic. Design Patent is iron clad, however. As recognized as Busse knives are in this forum, very few people in the general public have ever heard of Busse Combat or even recognize what a Talon Hole looks like.
 
Edw00d said:
While it's actually covered under both Design Patent and Trademark in some instances, A Design Patent is much stronger, and clearer in a legal sense.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/devices.html#shape

However in case law, Trademark from the Product shape is stronger when the general public recognizes the shape, and the general shape becomes iconic. Design Patent is iron clad, however. As recognized as Busse knives are in this forum, very few people in the general public have ever heard of Busse Combat or even recognize what a Talon Hole looks like.
Click to expand...



Edwood, How high do you score on the Janka Scale?
 
I agree with Gravelface, if Willow produced the blade for his own use I can understand, but trying to make a profit without even citing his inspiration (Busse) then I call him a fraud. Although I hope he is a new knife maker trying to come into his own but Willow needs to learn a lot more than copying others designs. I hope he will realize this and apologize and change his style.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top