Infringement?

[drbarnes]

 

[David Brown]

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.

Just curious, Are you a trademark or patent lawyer ?

 

[fbusmc]

I've got to jump in on this one: I remember my old A2 badger, and would love to have another one of the exact dimensions and feel in the hand.. not to keen on paying $600-700 for an original, but would love to have that knife again.. I think this is a sign that Jerry should make an ANNIVERSARY BADGER ATTACK IN THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION...but call it something revolutionary... like Nuclear Meltdown Badger attack! new steel, new handle colors and blade colors.. "but exact same feel and dimensions! COME ON JERRY! Bring back Old faithful... heck call it the Boss Badger!!!!!! I WOULD BUY IT! maybe lots of them

 

[wolfdad]

An Italian trying to make a Busse knife?? What? Italians should stick to what they are great at, making sports cars, designer suits, wine, sunglasses, pizza and spaghetti, switch blades, shotguns, and fierce beautiful young women that don't age well usually.......................now.............a Busse e knife eh? FA GET ABOUD It!

 

[sweet]

So whoever drills holes all over their tang can now trademark those holes to prevent other knifemakers from drilling any holes in their tangs? If I can dig up my old print photos from the BAKCA back in 1991 +/- someone had that hole already made in their custom knife... just like the trademarked Busse hole photo...

 

[Edw00d]

LOL, indeed. OK enough of the legal discussion. Needless to say Willows is clearly infringing either way.

And we all know his knife will never stand up to the abuse that REAL Busse's can. Love my Busse's. Love them all.

 

[uyotg]

Caning a sunbathing camel? What?

 

[resinguy]

Caning a sunbathing camel? What?

You're kidding, right?

if not, how about....


"beating a dead horse" ?

 

[Edw00d]

LOL, Caning a Sunbathing Camel".

I like that one.

 

[uyotg]

You're kidding, right?

if not, how about....


"beating a dead horse" ?

Huh? Whacking a sleeping unicorn with its own horn?

 

[Tyrade83]

Caning a sunbathing camel? What?

Awesome!!! lmao

 

[Last Visible Canary]

so....

Busse doesn't have a design patent on the talon hole. This is true because Busse only has one patent and that's for a locking mechanism, seen on the folder previously known as the cubera, a name which they previously had trademarked. They do have a trademark for the talon hole (note, not the name: just the hole itself and it's placement) because the trademark office gave them a trademark serial number and registration number. Not a patent number.

Your argument isn't that busse does or does not have a trademark on the talon hole (just the hole, not the name) because that is literally self evident by the existence of a trademark identification number and not a patent identification number. It appears to be with the trademark office workers who granted Busse the trademark. Something closer to "The trademark office worker who granted this should have denied it and sent Jerry's lawyer to the patent office, because it's clearly a design patent" or "Jerry should have gotten a design patent instead of a tradmark".

You can't make the argument that the trademark doesn't exist and that jerry has a design patent, because the documentation says otherwise.

Even with the argument that the hole itself is clearly better served by a 'design patent', it's not a design: it's a placement of a known and previously used feature that could be argued to be common use. Jerry argued that the placement of the feature (a mark) identified his company visually within his industry of knife making (his trade) regardless of design, meaning on any style of knife or handle. If he got a design patent he (seemingly) would have had to patent the handle shape or the overall knife design, not just a sole isolated feature. But then I'm not a patent lawyer. Even so, I can definitely say that jerry has a trademark and not a design patent based on the non-existance of a patent number regarding this feature.

 

[Jerry Busse]

so....

Busse doesn't have a design patent on the talon hole. This is true because Busse only has one patent and that's for a locking mechanism, seen on the folder previously known as the cubera, a name which they previously had trademarked. They do have a trademark for the talon hole (note, not the name: just the hole itself and it's placement) because the trademark office gave them a trademark serial number and registration number. Not a patent number.

Your argument isn't that busse does or does not have a trademark on the talon hole (just the hole, not the name) because that is literally self evident by the existence of a trademark identification number and not a patent identification number. It appears to be with the trademark office workers who granted Busse the trademark. Something closer to "The trademark office worker who granted this should have denied it and sent Jerry's lawyer to the patent office, because it's clearly a design patent" or "Jerry should have gotten a design patent instead of a tradmark".

You can't make the argument that the trademark doesn't exist and that jerry has a design patent, because the documentation says otherwise.

Even with the argument that the hole itself is clearly better served by a 'design patent', it's not a design: it's a placement of a known and previously used feature that could be argued to be common use. Jerry argued that the placement of the feature (a mark) identified his company visually within his industry of knife making (his trade) regardless of design, meaning on any style of knife or handle. If he got a design patent he (seemingly) would have had to patent the handle shape or the overall knife design, not just a sole isolated feature. But then I'm not a patent lawyer. Even so, I can definitely say that jerry has a trademark and not a design patent based on the non-existance of a patent number regarding this feature.

You are correct.

Oh and BTW . . . . Design patents expire . . . . Trademarks NEVER expire as long as they are kept active.

Jerry
.

 

[Edw00d]

You are correct.

Oh and BTW . . . . Design patents expire . . . . Trademarks NEVER expire as long as they are kept active.

Jerry
.

Unless they become generic, like "Kleenex".

Although that would be quite the accomplishment.

"Hey, honey. Can you pass the Steak Busse so I can cut this steak and plate in half?"

 

[Jaxx]

Unless they become generic, like "Kleenex".

Although that would be quite the accomplishment.

"Hey, honey. Can you pass the Steak Busse so I can cut this steak and plate in half?"

Huh? Most people call any copier machine a Xerox, but that doesn't give another company the right to sell copiers under the name, "Xerox" machine.
Same with Kleenex. We, the average consumers call most any facial tissue "Kleenex", but see how fast the corporate lawyers react if a competing company suddenly starts selling their version as Kleenex. It is still a trademark name/mark actively used and owned by Kimberly-Clark.

 

[suttond]

Once again someone has stolen the Busse hole.

 

[David Brown]

Once again someone has stolen the Busse hole.

does that make them Buss-hole stealers

My head hurts.

Let's drink

Rootbeer

 

[uyotg]

Huh? Most people call any copier machine a Xerox, but that doesn't give another company the right to sell copiers under the name, "Xerox" machine.
Same with Kleenex. We, the average consumers call most any facial tissue "Kleenex", but see how fast the corporate lawyers react if a competing company suddenly starts selling their version as Kleenex. It is still a trademark name/mark actively used and owned by Kimberly-Clark.

Trademarks can expire (or more specifically lose their value or exclusivity rights) if a brand becomes generic, what Ed was referring to. Of course lawyers will react quickly to another tissue company calling their tissues "Kleenex," but a more fitting example for what Ed is saying would be Kimberly-Clark begging the public to stop calling them "Kleenexes" and start calling them "tissues" or "Kleenex brand tissues." For example, Bayer has lost the rights "Aspirin" in the US.

 

[Jaxx]

Trademarks can expire (or more specifically lose their value or exclusivity rights) if a brand becomes generic, what Ed was referring to. Of course lawyers will react quickly to another tissue company calling their tissues "Kleenex," but a more fitting example for what Ed is saying would be Kimberly-Clark begging the public to stop calling them "Kleenexes" and start calling them "tissues" or "Kleenex brand tissues." For example, Bayer has lost the rights "Aspirin" in the US.

While that may be true, there's a little more to this particular case...

I pulled the short version from Wiki:

Bayer's first major product was acetylsalicylic acid (originally discovered by French chemist Charles Frederic Gerhardt in 1853), a modification of salicylic acid or salicin, a folk remedy found in the bark of the willow plant. By 1899, Bayer's trademark Aspirin was registered worldwide for Bayer's brand of acetylsalicylic acid, but because of the confiscation of Bayer's US assets and trademarks during World War I by the United States - and the subsequent widespread usage of the word to describe all brands of the compound, "Aspirin" lost its trademark status in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. It is now widely used in the US, UK, and France for all brands of the drug. However in over 80 other countries, such as Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Switzerland, it is still a registered trademark of Bayer.

 

[uyotg]

While that may be true, there's a little more to this particular case...

I pulled the short version from Wiki:

Bayer's first major product was acetylsalicylic acid (originally discovered by French chemist Charles Frederic Gerhardt in 1853), a modification of salicylic acid or salicin, a folk remedy found in the bark of the willow plant. By 1899, Bayer's trademark Aspirin was registered worldwide for Bayer's brand of acetylsalicylic acid, but because of the confiscation of Bayer's US assets and trademarks during World War I by the United States - and the subsequent widespread usage of the word to describe all brands of the compound, "Aspirin" lost its trademark status in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. It is now widely used in the US, UK, and France for all brands of the drug. However in over 80 other countries, such as Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Switzerland, it is still a registered trademark of Bayer.

Guess I shouldn't have chosen the first example that came up in my own Wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks if you'd like to see more
Like Ed has been saying, the hole seems more like a patent than a trademark, but since it has a trademark, I wonder how it could be genericized. Every knife gets talon holes? Replace the word "knife" with a picture of a talon hole? The Item Formerly Known as Knife, as in the Artist Formerly Known as Prince?