Protecting Knife Intellectual Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
Function can be patented. Form cannot, unless the form provides function.
Form can be Trade Marked, even and especially if it has no function, but trademarks need to be very specific. I cannot see how a whole knife design could be protected by trademark. The name and logos are another matter.

Example, Spyderco could not get patent protection for a simple round hole opening feature, but they could get the round hole recognised as a Trademark, but they had to use it on all their knives, even the fixed blades.
 
To Bill DeShivs Bill DeShivs and AVigil AVigil and everyone else, no need to keep derailing this guy's thread. The Hibben bowie is trademarked, and you can clear it up for yourself with a simple search, I am sure. I simply provided the info in my original post, and that info is correct.

If you wish to push a losing position, feel free to start a new thread, in my humble opinion. Obviously, you are free to do as you like.

Sam
 
Sam Wilson said:
Both, in a way. Design of the knife is protected, and "Rambo" is protected, also. Take the L like a man.

Sam
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about "Take the L like a man"? That is not the way we speak to each other here on the forum.

It is a simple question asking to provide information for your claim.
 
OK guy, no need to get hysterical and start cursing. Sorry you can't have a little fun. Regardless, the information is out there about the Hibben knife, I didn't really want to derail the thread.

So the short answer is yes, IP on a knife can be protected, and yes, the Hibben Rambo III knife is trademarked, as I said. I'm not really looking to argue about it with anyone, I just wanted to share the correct info in my original post. That has been accomplished.

Sam:thumbsup:



AVigil said:
What the hell are you talking about "Take the L like a man"? That is not the way we speak to each other here on the forum.

It is a simple question asking to provide information for your claim.
Click to expand...
 
Are you drunk?

It would be quicker to post a link confirming your claim then typing your rant.
 
claims without evidence can be dismissed.
 
Lol, the 'ol "reverse psychology." If anyone cares enough, they can look it up. If not, I'm not going to dig it up for them. I've seen the proof, and the Hibbens have told me. May be time for a break from the forum, man.

Sam:thumbsup:;)


AVigil said:
claims without evidence can be dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
Sam,
Pretend you are not just arguing with Adam, or proving that my understanding of design Trademarks is wrong. Think of all the other makers who will find this thread in years to come, looking for information about protecting their designs, or like Cliff, checking to see if their design could cause them legal head aches.

This forum is great because people share their hard won knowledge.

Chris
 
What is weird is it is not even an "argument"

A claim is made...
Evidence for that claim is asked for...

Person making the claim does everything but provide the evidence for the claim.
 
It is not an "argument," that is correct. There is fact, and seeming refusal to accept reality, possibly because the messenger isn't someone you like. :confused:

Either way, I never came in here to argue. I just stated a quick fact for reference and it snowballed from there. As mentioned, if anyone really cares, they can look it up the same as I would have to. They will appreciate it more that way. I got knives to make, fellas.

Sam:thumbsup:
 
Just provide the evidence of this "fact" We are not just going to take your word for it.

You have seen it so you know where to find it.

Everyone would like to see it.

As for "like" I do not even know who you are man.
 
Sam Wilson-
Do you have any experience with trademarks? Do you have a trademark?
Because you perceive something to be trademarked, or someone told you something was trademarked, most certainly does not mean that it's true.
So, you made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
 
So, as far as the differences here, a patent is completely out of the question. Its simply not possible unless you are talking about something specific like locking mechanism, something like the axis lock or something like that.

A trademark could only be gotten for the logo or perhaps the specific name of the design. You cant trademark anything "Functional" such a grind or even the shape of the blade. This is why fashion is almost impossible to protect. The knife blade is so clearly a tool and its design imparts function so a trademark would not fly if challenged.
 
Sam Wilson said:
Lol, the 'ol "reverse psychology." If anyone cares enough, they can look it up. If not, I'm not going to dig it up for them. I've seen the proof, and the Hibbens have told me. May be time for a break from the forum, man.

Sam:thumbsup:;)
Click to expand...

You can apply for a lot of trademarks, but i highly doubt it would stand up if challenged. According to the law a trademark is "
Trademarks can be words, symbols, names, designs, or any combination of these elements. A trademark is a logo or emblem used to identify and distinguish a company or goods from others.

Trademarks can also be sounds, shapes, fragrances, and color.

What can be trademarked has changed in recent years. Any word, name, symbol, or device can now be trademarked. However, limitations still exist (see What Can't Be Trademarked section below)."

He may have a trademark on calling it a gil hibben bowie, but he does not have a trademark for the design. Anyone could make the design of the knife and as long as they call it something else, the US PTO will let you.
 
Sam Wilson said:
OK guy, no need to get hysterical and start cursing. Sorry you can't have a little fun. Regardless, the information is out there about the Hibben knife, I didn't really want to derail the thread.

So the short answer is yes, IP on a knife can be protected, and yes, the Hibben Rambo III knife is trademarked, as I said. I'm not really looking to argue about it with anyone, I just wanted to share the correct info in my original post. That has been accomplished.

Sam:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You can make that claim all day long and act smug that clearly your point was proven since you said it was, but the fact that the U.S government specifies that a trademark can not be a matter of function and can only be a symbol or a mark that denotes the origins of goods means that without wildly convincing proof or a supreme court decision, your point is wrong. You made a suggestion, what it seems based on hearsay or a partly remembered story, and now the overwhelming weight of evidence says your recollection is wrong. The smart and respectable thing to do is see that the laws to which you think this was filed under forbid exactly what you are discribing
 
Bill DeShivs Bill DeShivs I've already explained I'm not going to go dig up the filing. It is out there for anyone to do a little research, if they actually care to. I'm quite sure it can be done online. So far, it seems there is more interest in getting me to post it myself instead of looking it up.

I'm not going to continue debating something I am sure of. I have seen it, and Gil and Linda told me the whole story. How long would you spend trying to convince someone 2+2=4? Probably not very long, because you already know the answer, and they can check it for themselves.

I originally posted to be helpful, it looks like that window has passed, so if people are interested they can go to the source, the Patent and Trademark Office. The facts should be what matters, not who posts it. That being said, what I said originally stands.

Sam:thumbsup:



Bill DeShivs said:
Sam Wilson-
Do you have any experience with trademarks? Do you have a trademark?
Because you perceive something to be trademarked, or someone told you something was trademarked, most certainly does not mean that it's true.
So, you made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
 
Greenberg Woods said:
You can apply for a lot of trademarks, but i highly doubt it would stand up if challenged. According to the law a trademark is "
Trademarks can be words, symbols, names, designs, or any combination of these elements. A trademark is a logo or emblem used to identify and distinguish a company or goods from others.

Trademarks can also be sounds, shapes, fragrances, and color.

What can be trademarked has changed in recent years. Any word, name, symbol, or device can now be trademarked. However, limitations still exist (see What Can't Be Trademarked section below)."

He may have a trademark on calling it a gil hibben bowie, but he does not have a trademark for the design. Anyone could make the design of the knife and as long as they call it something else, the US PTO will let you.
Click to expand...

Just gonna save this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top