Letter from Ontario's attorneys

R.A.T.

R.A.T.

Randall's Adventure & Training
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
10,400
Ontario's attorneys don't even note that the agreement ran out in April of 2007 (It started in April 2002). With that said they have to pay royalties on anything they sell of our designs for 10 years, and they even admit to being wrong (and in breach of that) in the second paragraph of this letter. (BTW: we haven't seen those checks yet and will let everyone know when they arrive).

I find the paragraph about the trademarks very interesting also.

The only thing that Ontario was granted per the contract after April 2007 was to be able to use our name and logo on knives for 5 more years (which they have to pay for via royalties). They breached that by attempting to steal from us (marks) and by refusal to pay royalties, not holding quality to our standards (thus hurting the RAT name), threatening us with legal action for having our own knife company, and about a half dozen other things I can think of right now that we can prove beyond any (and I do mean "any") doubt. In fact, we have already done so in the evidence and facts we have posted so far on this forum.

Now they're saying that by us telling the truth publicly on the internet that it is "unfair competition" and defamation (next to last paragraph). :rolleyes: Looks to me like they don't care too much for Capitalism. I guess it goes to show how much power the consumer has when he is given the truth and allowed to make up his own mind. Why doesn't Ontario come on here and give their version of the story? We would not censor it. We welcome any comments and proof they feel they have going for them.

The one thing that RAT Cutlery will always do is let their customers know what is going on and post the truth for everyone to see. Anyway, we post this here for everyone to make up their own minds on who is right and who is wrong.

______________________________________________________________

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12 FOUNTAIN PLAZA BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202-2292
TEL 716.856.0600 FAX 716.856.0432
MITCHELL J. BANAS, JR. Direct Dial: 716.843.3803
Partner E-mail: mbanas@jaeckle.com

May 20, 2008
Via Facsimile #703-759-9198 and First Class Mail

Michaela M. Barry, PC. 800 Nethercliffe Hall Road Great Falls, VA 22066

Re: Ontario Knife Company/Randall's Adventure and Training

Dear Ms. Barry:

Our client the Ontario Knife Company ("OKC") has asked us to respond to your April 30, 2008 telefax to it on behalf of Randall's Adventure and Training ("Randall's"), which was not received in its entirety until May 14, 2008.

OKC has sent directly to Randall's under separate cover checks and reports in cure of your claimed breach of the parties' April 4, 2002 agreement insofar as royalties are concerned. 1 note, however, that the April 2002 contract provides only that royalties bear a specified carrying charge when not paid by a certain date, which charge OKC has always paid when applicable (including now); accordingly, OKC has never been in default under the agreement.

Insofar as you contend that OKC's trademark applications are likewise a breach of the parties' agreement that needs to be cured, OKC similarly sees things quite differently. Even setting aside any conflicting claims of ownership of the subject marks, the parties' agreement does not expressly speak to the subjects of trademark ownership or applications — a point your April 30 letter seems to acknowledge. Accordingly, OKC's trademark applications cannot possibly be in breach of the parties' contract, and there is thus nothing to "cure" in that respect.

Finally, and as you are no doubt aware, Randall's has been participating in a rather active campaign on the internet and otherwise disparaging OKC, its products, and its personnel. This has included claims that OKC has sold "pirated" and "counterfeit" goods, inarguably defamatory statements which must stop. Your client has also disabled OKC's website www.ontariorat.com, the development cost of which OKC paid your client in full. Such has

Michaela M. Barry, PC May 20, 2008
Page 2

caused confusion in the marketplace and damaged OKC, both of which we expect to be remedied. Again, we must insist that Randall's refrain from engaging in this sort of conduct, even if only to avoid the obvious obstacle such trade defamation and other unfair competition presents to a long-term resolution of whatever issues may be in dispute as between the parties.

Please contact me should you wish to discuss our clients' respective positions on all disputed issues. Otherwise, this letter and OKC's transmittals to Randall's are, of course, without waiver of or prejudice to, but rather with a full reservation of, OKC's rights in the matter.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP



MJB/kls
cc: Ontario Knife Company
Attn: Nicholas Trbovich, Jr.
861254

_______________________________________________________

The above letter was in response to this cease and desist letter from our attorney:

> Ontario Knife Company
> Attn: Nick Trbovich Jr.
> 26 Empire Street
> P.O. Box 145
> Franklinville, NY 14737
> Via FAX: (716) 676-5535 and US Mail
>
> Re: RAT Cutlery contract dated April 4, 2002
>
> Dear Mr. Trbovich:
>
> We represent Randall's Adventure and Training. Pursuant to the
> Termination Date and the Termination clause of the aforementioned
> contract, Randall's Adventure and Training hereby terminates its
> obligations hereunder.
>
> Further, according to the contract, specifically Section 2 - Term,
> Section 3 - Royalty, Section 4 - Reports, Ontario Knife's obligations
> to continue royalty payments and reporting of sales to RAT are ongoing
> until April 4, 2012.
>
> We note that you have not provided us with reporting or royalty
> payment since ____________ (draft copy that the date was not filled in since I had to provide that info to Mikki - JR). We therefore consider you in breach of
> contract and provide you with thirty (30) days to cure said breach.
> In the event that you fail to cure within that time, you will cease
> manufacture of all RTAK and RAT Cutlery products.
>
> Further, we note that you have attempted to trademark several RAT
> common law marks. You will note that even if the contract were still
> in force, and not terminated as of April 2, 2007, you were permitted
> license to USE the marks pending termination of the contract, and were
> NEVER given license to claim ownership of RAT's marks. No transfer of
> intellectual property of any kind was contemplated or memorialized in
> the contract . Your trademark attorney was made aware of this.
>
> Rather than engage in protracted litigation concerning your attempts
> at registration, we propose that the applications for RTAK and RAT and
> any further applications (trademark or otherwise) that may be created
> using Randall's Intellectual Property be immediately transferred to
> Randall's Adventure and Training. Further, Mr. Randall demands
> Ontario cease and desist use of Randall's logos, marks, designs, and/
> or other Intellectual Property.
>
> Please respond at your earliest convenience via email, fax, or US Mail.
>
> Michaela M. Barry, PC
> Attorney At Law
> 800 Nethercliffe Hall Road
> Great Falls, VA 22066
> mb@mikkibarry.com
> Fax: 703.759.9198
>


As a side note, Ontario never even tried to respond to the first letter sent to them by our attorney on the trademark issue.
 
That is crazy. If anything, all I ever read was you guys defending them against people who would badmouth the hell out of them for this stuff. What silly people. Oh well. I'm sure you guys will come out on top and they'll just be scarred from the crap THEY tried to pull.
 
Lawyers have never been known to let facts get in the way of an arguement.
 
I guess the idea of people forming an opinion about what they like and dislike doesn't sit to well with them. I find that rather laughable. I remember reading here about someone who had a problem with their Ontario sticking in the sheath and really having to yank it out. That's obviously a QC problem with their knives but they don't seem to want people discussing it :jerkit:. Well when it's all done we know who will come out in the right :D.
 
No doubt. But they shouldn't blame us for just telling the truth in a public format, then call it defamation. They have as much access to the public as we do. There's an old saying: if you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. The truth is the truth and everyone should always be entitled to the truth...especially a customer base. We simply tell the truth and let anyone and everyone hear it and decide for themselves.
 
I'm confused...

In OKC's atty response, the first paragraph states:

Our client the Ontario Knife Company ("OKC") has asked us to respond to your April 30, 2008 telefax to it on behalf of Randall's Adventure and Training ("Randall's"), which was not received in its entirety until May 14, 2008. (My emphasis added)

Why is there a gap in the time line from the date your atty FAXED the letter on April 30, and the date it was received IN ITS ENTIRETY... MAY 14, 2008?

This doesn't make sense to my black or white thinking mind...

At the very least, you now have established communications with them. That's a big plus in itself. Thanks for the update Jeff.
 
It just goes to show that people do not want to deal with corporations that try and flex their muscle. On the bright side it proves that you guys make a far better product and have the following to back it up. This is what is hurting Ontario. People that know blades will stand by companies that are honest and put out a great product. People buying your product has really got to burn them. When they sold the RAT line legally it was a win win situation. But their greed has turned them in the wrong direction.
 
R.A.T. said:
Why doesn't Ontario come on here and give their version of the story?
Click to expand...

Their counsel may have advised them against such action.

That's one possibility...

R.A.T. said:
No doubt. But they shouldn't blame us for just telling the truth in a public format, then call it defamation. They have as much access to the public as we do. There's an old saying: if you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. The truth is the truth and everyone should always be entitled to the truth...especially a customer base. We simply tell the truth and let anyone and everyone hear it and decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I was only suggesting one possible answer for their silence here.

Corporations of Ontario's size rarely communicate with the public except through paid advisers - such as public relations firms, advertising agencies, accountants and attorneys.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how they're saying "oh please don't discuss this stuff and give out the facts on the internet, because people are blasting us everywhere now and it's hurting our sales." I guess they're forgetting that THEY BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES.

When a bully gets his a$$ kicked in the middle of the schoolyard by the little kid he was picking on and no one is afraid of him anymore, he can't blame the little kid who fought back for ruining his tough reputation.

Bully: "Could you maybe kick my a$$ in private next time so I can still be the alpha dipsh!t around here?"
 
Good to know you're getting to them. You've my support, for whatever that is worth.
 
The thing is, we don't want to get to them. We simply want them to leave us alone and quit making knives with our name, logo and likeness on them. Again, we wish them the best when it comes to the knife industry...we really do but quit trying to steal our marks and threatening us with legal action when we all we were trying to do is the right thing. Ontario never once tried get us to re-sign a contract after it was over with in April 2007. It was almost like they didn't care if the RAT team wanted to make knives or not. Then when we get our own thing going they come after us? Go figure.
 
Greed rings out pretty loud to me .... the rat line is probably a big seller in the ontario line up....compared to the other ontario blades...
 
In all fairness to Ontario, about an hour ago UPS delivered a letter than had all of our back royalty statements and checks enclosed. (With that said, I am assuming that the checks and statements are accurate). So, this appears to me to be the start of doing things correctly when it comes to the differences between RAT Cutlery and Ontario. I truly hope so. As we have said all along, we wish Ontario the best of success but we want things to be done correctly whether it's grinding a knife with our name on it or paying us royalties that are due. Maybe the attorneys can now settle the differences we have with the trademarks and other issues. Hopefully.

Onward!

Jeff
 
What's funny is they could have avoided all this by either being equitable from the beginning or coming up with a spiffy name for the former RAT knives, maybe used a Spec-Ops sheath like the Survival or Combat Master, and marketed it as an "improved" product, and competed head to head in the marketplace. They'd have still come out for less money than a RAT RC knife, and would have kept the crowd that's willing to go with a bit of a lesser product for price savings, and let RC take the higher end of the market.

What we see between RC and OKC, is a company run by a couple of smart guys that (nearly immediately) respond to its customer base, and a company run by board meetings of people who probably don't know which end of a knife to use, much less how to do the "outdoorsy" things the "neanderthals" who buy their knives to do.

Hope that's coherent, I just got up.

ETA: you posted right when I did.
Good if they're going to pay you. If they're going to continue in equitable dealings then that's fine with me. I still stand by my statement that it would have been better to have done so fromt he beginning, or to compete by renaming and slightly altering the product line.
 
I am sorry to see this happening. Quite frankly, I think the RAT line has been good for Ontario, bringing them fresh designs and Ontario has been good for RAT, especially in market place exposure. I know for a fact this split has hurt the business of both companies. At one time, I had a small RAT in D2 and a RAT 7 in 1095. The D2 was given to a friend that insisted upon fondling it every time he was in town for a visit and the RAT 7 was sold to a co-worker. I had planned to get another RAT 7 in D2. This ruckus started about that time. Also bear in mind I have never had any quality control issues with anything I've purchased from Ontario and that has been quite a bit over the years. Anyway, all of a sudden I couldn't find a plain blade RAT 7 in D2 anywhere. There were a few available with serrations but I didn't want that. It looked like Ontario had stopped production and even though RAT was talking about the RAT 6, it wasn't out yet and would only be available in 1095. In addition, I thought the RAT Company knives were on the "pricey" side for a production 1095 knife. I ended up finding and trying a similar featured knife, although in 440C, American made, from another company that I had never paid attention to before and liked it so much, I ordered two additional different models from them. You have to wonder how many others have done the same. I do hope RAT and Ontario can get this resolved quickly because it's hurting producers and consumers alike. Best of luck to you all.
 
Enjoy the blades said:
I am sorry to see this happening. Quite frankly, I think the RAT line has been good for Ontario, bringing them fresh designs and Ontario has been good for RAT, especially in market place exposure. I know for a fact this split has hurt the business of both companies.
Click to expand...


Wha???:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top