- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 13,363
^ David, approximately when was that knife made?
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Is the Loveless Shop still operating?
- Thread starter Kevin Wilkins
- Start date
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 954
Not clear Kevin.
As told to me by Jim most of the knives with this mark were Jim's. It seems that Bob and Jim would set aside a couple of knives from each batch for a rainy day/emergency. For personal reasons a few years back he had to sell quite a few.
As told to me by Jim most of the knives with this mark were Jim's. It seems that Bob and Jim would set aside a couple of knives from each batch for a rainy day/emergency. For personal reasons a few years back he had to sell quite a few.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2012
- Messages
- 4
Great opinions!
I still wonder where all the newer knives are. Three years should add up to a decent number but you just don't see them. I have some very nice ones but it is hard to gauge the value. Hopefully they will find their place soon. I have seen a few other Merritt logo knives "Jim Merritt Maker, Long Beach, Ca." offered for sale. The asking prices were comparable to similar Loveless maker knives. They weren't selling though. A couple I would love to have, but it's hard when you can't find comparables to value.
Here is a semi-skinner I have, made in the late 90's. One of my favorites!
Nice website too Kevin!
Tom
I still wonder where all the newer knives are. Three years should add up to a decent number but you just don't see them. I have some very nice ones but it is hard to gauge the value. Hopefully they will find their place soon. I have seen a few other Merritt logo knives "Jim Merritt Maker, Long Beach, Ca." offered for sale. The asking prices were comparable to similar Loveless maker knives. They weren't selling though. A couple I would love to have, but it's hard when you can't find comparables to value.
Here is a semi-skinner I have, made in the late 90's. One of my favorites!
Nice website too Kevin!
Tom
Attachments
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,045
Just for the sake of discussion:
I agree with Tom when he says "the tradition of Loveless knives will always continue but the true and authentic knives that have set the standard will end when Jim hangs it up."
Not fond of all this talk about money.
-Just my 2 cents. Peace.
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 954
Not fond of all this talk about money.
-Just my 2 cents. Peace.
I agree Marcus. Every time this topic comes up one question goes through my head. Where does Loveless end and Merritt begin? In their thirty year partnership I know Jim contributed more than being a grinder monkey. If you look at the quality of the knives pre-Jim the answer is evident.
In my mind the two names are synonymous (even if it is not in others).
Kohai999
Second Degree Cutter
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 12,554
There can be no question that Jim Merritt-made Loveless knives are the best that they ever were.
Now.....
Loveless and Merritt are two separate people.....that Jim makes the best Loveless knives became relatively moot when Bob died.....there is nothing new in this....history always credits the "Known" and diminishes the "worker".
IF there can be no rhyme or reason to things(there is often none) it is easy to understand that Loveless the man was the master of DESIGN.....but when he died....it changed everything.
Isn't fair, isn't representational of the quality of product(the knives are still great)....but it is what it is.
Best Regards,
STeven Garsson
Now.....
Loveless and Merritt are two separate people.....that Jim makes the best Loveless knives became relatively moot when Bob died.....there is nothing new in this....history always credits the "Known" and diminishes the "worker".
IF there can be no rhyme or reason to things(there is often none) it is easy to understand that Loveless the man was the master of DESIGN.....but when he died....it changed everything.
Isn't fair, isn't representational of the quality of product(the knives are still great)....but it is what it is.
Best Regards,
STeven Garsson
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 219
Reminds me of a similar situation from years back with Andy Warhol. My good friend David worked in Warhol's factory studio printing and would bring the prints to Andy who would sign the ones he felt were acceptable and then they were Warhol's!!! Rumor has it sometimes Andy was too lazy to sign and would simply say to David... "That one is good, sign it!" But the moment Andy died, anything that came from his studio was suspect.
It is a tough and possibly unfair situation but is common when items mutate into ART. Bob is gone and only a Loveless knife created while he was alive will ever have real significance to collectors.
It is a tough and possibly unfair situation but is common when items mutate into ART. Bob is gone and only a Loveless knife created while he was alive will ever have real significance to collectors.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 27,637
it is an odd situation when Art becomes mass produced, what is it then? Where is its value found? Where will it be found? Is the Art imbued into singular items, or is the entire body of work and the idea which birthed it that wins out, in the fullness of time? Does the mere involvement of the individual who created the zeigeist embody all that is valued in the works they created and/or inspired/supervised, or is each item valued on its own merit?
Andy Warhol was definitely the one to put a point on it. Very interesting parallel!
Andy Warhol was definitely the one to put a point on it. Very interesting parallel!
Kohai999
Second Degree Cutter
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 12,554
Silkscreening=mass produced.....Art
Dale Chihully-Glass=hasn't blown his own since he lost an eye and depth perception with it-supervises a team=mass produced(in a sense)=art
Bronzes=mass produced to a certain degree= art
The list goes on....the separation from the craft is acceptable, it is in the original designs and following them through to completion that represents a large part of art.
Loveless's art was in the design...he would be the first one to tell you that.
Best Regards,
STeven Garsson
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,498
Many knifemakers have been inspired by the perfect designs Bob Loveless came up with.
Many of them also create similar looking knives, but very few note the
fact on the knife itself, thus not giving Bob the due credit for the design of their knife.
Edmund Davidson, a good friend of Bob's, ALWAYS uses a "Loveless Design" etch
on Full Integrals inspired by Bob's designs.
I think every knifemaker should be proud to note this whenever their design
is inspired by a Bob Loveless knife....
All the best,
David Darom (ddd)
Many of them also create similar looking knives, but very few note the
fact on the knife itself, thus not giving Bob the due credit for the design of their knife.
Edmund Davidson, a good friend of Bob's, ALWAYS uses a "Loveless Design" etch
on Full Integrals inspired by Bob's designs.
I think every knifemaker should be proud to note this whenever their design
is inspired by a Bob Loveless knife....
All the best,
David Darom (ddd)
Kevin Wilkins
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Oct 7, 1998
- Messages
- 1,483
There are legions of knifemakers who's entire career is pretty much based on doing Loveless' designs. Many of them have even copied Loveless Logo! The curved text line with the name then Maker and the two triangles. It looks like they would at least design their own logo.
I understand that Loveless was OK with all that during his lifetime - that's what I read on the internet so it has to be true.
But now that he is gone, whoever controls his estate must own the designs and the rights to use his name. I don't know if that is Mr. Merritt, But it must belong to someone. The Loveless brand and the right to his designs are some of the most valuable properties in the cutlery industry.
It may be a nice thing if someone writes Loveless Design on their products ... but are they paying money to do so? Are they paying money to even use the design? I bet you $ to donuts the right attorney could get a handle on that situation. The Loveless estate seems to be inactive in safeguarding their valuable property and licensing the designs in a way that could insure the quality and dignity Mr. Loveless' work deserves. As I understand it, Loveless was always interested in seeing his work actually used, not vanishing into a collection where it would never be used to cut anything.
Does anybody know who actually owns the rights in the Loveless estate?
Steven, your mention of Dale Chihuly makes a good point, the deciding factor in his work is that he is very much present and in control of every aspect of the work. There are a number of very good films I have seen - I own them on dvd. Chihuly is there doing the drawing, interacting in every phase of the project. I've also always felt that Loveless was also totally in charge of his work, that whatever came out of the shop was "his" no matter who may have actually had a hand in making it. It is this presence that is no longer there, cannot be there. That magic is gone.
It will be up to Jim Merritt to make his own presence, his own magic known and felt in the buyer's community. That is what will bring the collectors to his work.
I understand that Loveless was OK with all that during his lifetime - that's what I read on the internet so it has to be true.
But now that he is gone, whoever controls his estate must own the designs and the rights to use his name. I don't know if that is Mr. Merritt, But it must belong to someone. The Loveless brand and the right to his designs are some of the most valuable properties in the cutlery industry. It may be a nice thing if someone writes Loveless Design on their products ... but are they paying money to do so? Are they paying money to even use the design? I bet you $ to donuts the right attorney could get a handle on that situation. The Loveless estate seems to be inactive in safeguarding their valuable property and licensing the designs in a way that could insure the quality and dignity Mr. Loveless' work deserves. As I understand it, Loveless was always interested in seeing his work actually used, not vanishing into a collection where it would never be used to cut anything.
Does anybody know who actually owns the rights in the Loveless estate?
Steven, your mention of Dale Chihuly makes a good point, the deciding factor in his work is that he is very much present and in control of every aspect of the work. There are a number of very good films I have seen - I own them on dvd
. Chihuly is there doing the drawing, interacting in every phase of the project. I've also always felt that Loveless was also totally in charge of his work, that whatever came out of the shop was "his" no matter who may have actually had a hand in making it. It is this presence that is no longer there, cannot be there. That magic is gone.It will be up to Jim Merritt to make his own presence, his own magic known and felt in the buyer's community. That is what will bring the collectors to his work.
Per "Loveless's art was in the design...he would be the first one to tell you that". Design w/o proper execution is not art. Art is both design and execution.
People love to say Bob didn't make the knives, well only he and his shop people know what he really did.
However, everyone knows he developed and maintained methods of knife making that were top notch. He maintained those standards with different people over the years. That wouldn't have been possible if Loveless was "only" a designer.
Ever have a Delaware Maid in hand? Sure, not picture perfect, but there is art in design and execution.
When it comes to the Loveless mark and brand, some commercial makers have put his name on knives since his death (AGRussell has a "Lovelesss design" folder but it's not a standard pattern) but nobody, to my knowledge has directly used his mark. Fantoni still makes his folding city knife and hunter, but w/o the Loveless mark they had on them when they were Lone Wolf knives.
People love to say Bob didn't make the knives, well only he and his shop people know what he really did.
However, everyone knows he developed and maintained methods of knife making that were top notch. He maintained those standards with different people over the years. That wouldn't have been possible if Loveless was "only" a designer.
Ever have a Delaware Maid in hand? Sure, not picture perfect, but there is art in design and execution.
When it comes to the Loveless mark and brand, some commercial makers have put his name on knives since his death (AGRussell has a "Lovelesss design" folder but it's not a standard pattern) but nobody, to my knowledge has directly used his mark. Fantoni still makes his folding city knife and hunter, but w/o the Loveless mark they had on them when they were Lone Wolf knives.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 219
I respect Bob's designs and unfortunately, it does not appear he ever took any steps to protect his intellectual property. Patenting designs can be a laborious and expensive process and licensing deals can also be a sophisticated proposition though it appears there were a few.
Regarding collecting... Funny that STeven mentioned Chihully Glass. Another friend, Annabelle, had a similar role in Dale's shop. But key was he was there, supervising and therefore work that he signed had corresponding artist-created value. Sole authorship is actually very rare in art, but sole credit is common! (Jackson Pollock's wife may have added some splatter here and there walking by!)
I think Jim Merritt is in a tough position. Unlike Steve Johnson who branched out and created huge value in his own brand, Jim has been the worker overshadowed by the Loveless brand. Now that Bob has passed, I can't see anyone paying the same inflated prices for AD-Loveless (Merritt) creations. It just doesn't work that way.
I was very jealous of my friend STeven as he took delivery on an amazing Loveless piece (documented) just days before Bob passed away. At the time I commented to him how amazing that was and how that fact amplified the value. STeven and I also got to interview Bob once at his last AKI (2005 I believe) and he was well aware of the fact many people were as he put it, "hoarding" his knives and that their value would rise significantly when he left this earth. He joked about it and had a little disdain that lots of his knives were NOT being used and sitting in safes.
Jim is a great maker and at the last AKI (just after Bob's death) he had a few of his knives and they were obviously superb. I would gladly buy a Merritt knife (of a Loveless design) and would actually prefer it to have a new solely "Merritt" mark.
As a collector... A Lawndale or Riverside Loveless with a signed sheath or something like a Delaware Maid would be a whole different acquisition and my expectations of value appreciation, with strong provenance connecting the piece to Bob, would be in a different league.
Dr. Darom.... Thoughts?
Regarding collecting... Funny that STeven mentioned Chihully Glass. Another friend, Annabelle, had a similar role in Dale's shop. But key was he was there, supervising and therefore work that he signed had corresponding artist-created value. Sole authorship is actually very rare in art, but sole credit is common! (Jackson Pollock's wife may have added some splatter here and there walking by!)
I think Jim Merritt is in a tough position. Unlike Steve Johnson who branched out and created huge value in his own brand, Jim has been the worker overshadowed by the Loveless brand. Now that Bob has passed, I can't see anyone paying the same inflated prices for AD-Loveless (Merritt) creations. It just doesn't work that way.
I was very jealous of my friend STeven as he took delivery on an amazing Loveless piece (documented) just days before Bob passed away. At the time I commented to him how amazing that was and how that fact amplified the value. STeven and I also got to interview Bob once at his last AKI (2005 I believe) and he was well aware of the fact many people were as he put it, "hoarding" his knives and that their value would rise significantly when he left this earth. He joked about it and had a little disdain that lots of his knives were NOT being used and sitting in safes.
Jim is a great maker and at the last AKI (just after Bob's death) he had a few of his knives and they were obviously superb. I would gladly buy a Merritt knife (of a Loveless design) and would actually prefer it to have a new solely "Merritt" mark.
As a collector... A Lawndale or Riverside Loveless with a signed sheath or something like a Delaware Maid would be a whole different acquisition and my expectations of value appreciation, with strong provenance connecting the piece to Bob, would be in a different league.
Dr. Darom.... Thoughts?
Last edited:
Kevin Wilkins
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Oct 7, 1998
- Messages
- 1,483
You don't need to patent a design or work of art for it to belong to you, you own the copyright the second you creat it. We're not talking about mechanical patents. International copyright law is clear on this: You creat an artwork, you own it.
Loveless owned the designs he created as he owned his name and the right to use it and control who else used it. Particularly the right to use it in connection with the sale and marketing of cutlery. The ownership could have been strengthened by a number of legal tactics and now that he's gone the estate would have been wise indeed, would still be wise even now, to seek competent legal council to further protect and solidify their ownership rights. There are law firms that specilize in that kind of work. I know a good one in NYC.
The Loveless name/brand and his original designs are worth a lot of money. And they will continue to be worth a lot of money in the future. The right to use the Loveless name as a claim on a product is a valuable selling tool. How long do you think I would last if I started making cars for sale and wrote "BMW Design" on the side without BMW's permission? There'd be so many BMW lawyers outside my shop with pitchforks and torches it would look like the last scene in "Frankenstein". And BMW would be right too.
I certainly don't have any direct interest in the situation, but shouldn't Loveless' widow and children be looked after? Jim Merritt has spent decades grinding knives, now it would be a very profitable full time job to simply manage the estate's rights and maybe make a knife if he felt like it. I wouldn't mind producing a Loveless design if I knew who to ask regarding obtaining the rights.
BTW @ Jakester: Did your friend who printed for Warhol's last start with an M? Is he a painter still in New York? Could be I know him too.
Another friend of mine from college worked for Interview back in the 80s. She was a real smart, real pretty girl. I used to stop by the Factory sometime to visit and always was after her to introduce me to Andy ... but whenever I was there, he was either not there or meeting with "real" people. Nobody thought he was going to die. What a tragedy. Thing is, it was also a problem for Interview magazine because nobody sold ads like Andy Warhol. They used to have "lunches" in the factory where the kids (like my friend) would get on the phone and call prospective advertisers and say "Andy REALLY wants you to come to lunch on thursday..." Who could say No? And they had a big table and it was really cool and the food was well catered, the booze was flowing and the girls were beautiful and the boys were beautiful and Andy was there ... and ... everybody bought ads. They had the contracts prepared in advance and ready to sign. Andy Warhol was not only a talented artist, he was a master at marketing and selling. I wish I had gotten to meet him! Damn it.
Point is: Bob Loveless was not only a master knife designer and maker, he was also a master at marketing and selling his work. He built the Loveless brand and made it what is, and that is a tremendous accomplishment.
Loveless owned the designs he created as he owned his name and the right to use it and control who else used it. Particularly the right to use it in connection with the sale and marketing of cutlery. The ownership could have been strengthened by a number of legal tactics and now that he's gone the estate would have been wise indeed, would still be wise even now, to seek competent legal council to further protect and solidify their ownership rights. There are law firms that specilize in that kind of work. I know a good one in NYC.
The Loveless name/brand and his original designs are worth a lot of money. And they will continue to be worth a lot of money in the future. The right to use the Loveless name as a claim on a product is a valuable selling tool. How long do you think I would last if I started making cars for sale and wrote "BMW Design" on the side without BMW's permission? There'd be so many BMW lawyers outside my shop with pitchforks and torches it would look like the last scene in "Frankenstein". And BMW would be right too.
I certainly don't have any direct interest in the situation, but shouldn't Loveless' widow and children be looked after? Jim Merritt has spent decades grinding knives, now it would be a very profitable full time job to simply manage the estate's rights and maybe make a knife if he felt like it. I wouldn't mind producing a Loveless design if I knew who to ask regarding obtaining the rights.
BTW @ Jakester: Did your friend who printed for Warhol's last start with an M? Is he a painter still in New York? Could be I know him too.
Another friend of mine from college worked for Interview back in the 80s. She was a real smart, real pretty girl. I used to stop by the Factory sometime to visit and always was after her to introduce me to Andy ... but whenever I was there, he was either not there or meeting with "real" people. Nobody thought he was going to die. What a tragedy. Thing is, it was also a problem for Interview magazine because nobody sold ads like Andy Warhol. They used to have "lunches" in the factory where the kids (like my friend) would get on the phone and call prospective advertisers and say "Andy REALLY wants you to come to lunch on thursday..." Who could say No? And they had a big table and it was really cool and the food was well catered, the booze was flowing and the girls were beautiful and the boys were beautiful and Andy was there ... and ... everybody bought ads. They had the contracts prepared in advance and ready to sign. Andy Warhol was not only a talented artist, he was a master at marketing and selling. I wish I had gotten to meet him! Damn it.
Point is: Bob Loveless was not only a master knife designer and maker, he was also a master at marketing and selling his work. He built the Loveless brand and made it what is, and that is a tremendous accomplishment.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 219
Kevin,
>>> My friend at Warhol's was a guy named David.
You have a limited amount of time to claim patent rights once a design or invention goes to market and if you don't take those steps it is very hard and expensive after the fact to claim creation/proprietary rights. (Copyrights on written works are a different beast as are trademarks of logos and brand names. Automatic copyright rights do occur at date/time of creation in USA but you still have to prove the original work is yours and that the infringing party had access/saw your work.)
I believe a design patent would be applicable to protect a knife design. (A consult with an IP attorney would clarify best protection options for designs.)
Since many makers have now created knives for many years of Loveless patterns without remuneration, my guess is it is pretty clear they are now in the realm of public domain if there are no existing patents. (I hope there are but since the trademarks detailed below were filed this year, I doubt it.) I am glad that Bob was open/free with his designs and he seemed happy to share. Flip side is that by allowing free use, he most likely sacrificed any proprietary rights to his designs but certainly not his name and logos.
Hopefully Bob filed patent apps and the design rights are secure!
I searched the US Trademark d'base and his name and logo designs are trademarked but just recently by the individual listed below.
Here are two of his marks on the public record. All were secured in 2013, just last month. (Three marks total. On the name "LOVELESS" and the two well known logo designs; football and naked lady.) Again, these do NOT protect knife designs:
Word Mark LOVELESS
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives. FIRST USE: 19541231. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19541231
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85858900
Filing Date February 25, 2013
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Russel Klaehn INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 725 Fawn Ct. Vacaville CALIFORNIA 95687
Attorney of Record Jason P. Webb
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
-----------------------
Word Mark R.W. LOVELESS MAKER RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives. FIRST USE: 19750101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19750101
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code 02.03.19 - Bathing suits (women wearing); Lingerie (women wearing); Nude women, women wearing underclothes, bathing suits or brief attire; Underclothes (women wearing); Underwear (women wearing)
02.09.03 - Humans, including men, women and children, depicted reclining or sleeping; Reclining, humans; Sleeping, humans
Serial Number 85913717
Filing Date April 24, 2013
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Russell Klaehn INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 725 Fawn Ct. Vacaville CALIFORNIA 95687
Attorney of Record Jason P. Webb
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a nude reclining female superimposed over the letters CALIFORN and adjacent to the words R.W. LOVELESS MAKER RIVERSIDE,.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
>>> My friend at Warhol's was a guy named David.
You have a limited amount of time to claim patent rights once a design or invention goes to market and if you don't take those steps it is very hard and expensive after the fact to claim creation/proprietary rights. (Copyrights on written works are a different beast as are trademarks of logos and brand names. Automatic copyright rights do occur at date/time of creation in USA but you still have to prove the original work is yours and that the infringing party had access/saw your work.)
I believe a design patent would be applicable to protect a knife design. (A consult with an IP attorney would clarify best protection options for designs.)
Since many makers have now created knives for many years of Loveless patterns without remuneration, my guess is it is pretty clear they are now in the realm of public domain if there are no existing patents. (I hope there are but since the trademarks detailed below were filed this year, I doubt it.) I am glad that Bob was open/free with his designs and he seemed happy to share. Flip side is that by allowing free use, he most likely sacrificed any proprietary rights to his designs but certainly not his name and logos.
Hopefully Bob filed patent apps and the design rights are secure!
I searched the US Trademark d'base and his name and logo designs are trademarked but just recently by the individual listed below.
Here are two of his marks on the public record. All were secured in 2013, just last month. (Three marks total. On the name "LOVELESS" and the two well known logo designs; football and naked lady.) Again, these do NOT protect knife designs:
Word Mark LOVELESS
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives. FIRST USE: 19541231. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19541231
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 85858900
Filing Date February 25, 2013
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Russel Klaehn INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 725 Fawn Ct. Vacaville CALIFORNIA 95687
Attorney of Record Jason P. Webb
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
-----------------------
Word Mark R.W. LOVELESS MAKER RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives. FIRST USE: 19750101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19750101
Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code 02.03.19 - Bathing suits (women wearing); Lingerie (women wearing); Nude women, women wearing underclothes, bathing suits or brief attire; Underclothes (women wearing); Underwear (women wearing)
02.09.03 - Humans, including men, women and children, depicted reclining or sleeping; Reclining, humans; Sleeping, humans
Serial Number 85913717
Filing Date April 24, 2013
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Russell Klaehn INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 725 Fawn Ct. Vacaville CALIFORNIA 95687
Attorney of Record Jason P. Webb
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a nude reclining female superimposed over the letters CALIFORN and adjacent to the words R.W. LOVELESS MAKER RIVERSIDE,.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Other Data The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2005
- Messages
- 219
The above illustrates my point exactly. Since no trademarks were ever filed, a third party could potentially swoop in and register legal protections. A trademark owner can go into federal court and use these active trademarks to stop others from using them.
Turns out Mr. Klaehn IS connected to Bob's heirs so all is good... But if he was not, it would be a huge expense/hassle to contest these trademarks and clear things up and possibly take years.
GREAT MAKERS READING THIS: I HUMBLY SUGGEST YOU GO TO LEGALZOOM OR A GOOD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY AND FILE FOR AN IN-USE WORD MARK US TRADEMARK ON THE US FEDERAL TRADEMARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER FOR YOUR NAME IN AT LEAST THE MAJOR KNIFE CATEGORIES LIKE THE APPLICATIONS DETAILED HEREIN!
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives.
PLEASE! Entire process can be accomplished for $800 to $2000 over 6-15 months and then no ass**les can use your name in the knife world. (IF YOU HAVE EXTRA $$$, TRADEMARK YOUR LOGO(S)/STAMPS AND PRODUCT NAMES TOO! And if you create a major hit knife like a Bodega with unique features, patent them!)
In my experience, using an attorney is a better course as response actions (part of the process when examiner raises any concerns) can be tricky. What is really nice about our federal trademark law is you can stop infringers through an injunction in federal court and you are entitled to serious damages! But only if you have the trademark!
Kevin knows a good NY firm... Ask him for a referral.
Turns out Mr. Klaehn IS connected to Bob's heirs so all is good... But if he was not, it would be a huge expense/hassle to contest these trademarks and clear things up and possibly take years.
GREAT MAKERS READING THIS: I HUMBLY SUGGEST YOU GO TO LEGALZOOM OR A GOOD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEY AND FILE FOR AN IN-USE WORD MARK US TRADEMARK ON THE US FEDERAL TRADEMARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER FOR YOUR NAME IN AT LEAST THE MAJOR KNIFE CATEGORIES LIKE THE APPLICATIONS DETAILED HEREIN!
Goods and Services IC 008. US 023 028 044. G & S: Fishing knives; Fixed blade knives; Folding knives; Hunting knives; Knives; Knives for hobby use; Leather sheaths for knives; Pocket knives; Sport knives; Throwing knives; Utility knives; Whittling knives; Working knives.
PLEASE! Entire process can be accomplished for $800 to $2000 over 6-15 months and then no ass**les can use your name in the knife world. (IF YOU HAVE EXTRA $$$, TRADEMARK YOUR LOGO(S)/STAMPS AND PRODUCT NAMES TOO! And if you create a major hit knife like a Bodega with unique features, patent them!)
In my experience, using an attorney is a better course as response actions (part of the process when examiner raises any concerns) can be tricky. What is really nice about our federal trademark law is you can stop infringers through an injunction in federal court and you are entitled to serious damages! But only if you have the trademark!
Kevin knows a good NY firm... Ask him for a referral.
Last edited: