Protecting Knife Intellectual Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is one of the interesting things about forums. All this time spent telling me stuff instead of finding the filing and seeing it for yourself. I had no desire to get people riled up, but there is no sense coming after me because you don't like what I have to say. Substance, not source.

Sam
 
Flat Earthers also believe they have "the facts" LOL
Look it up:confused:
 
Sam Wilson said:
This is one of the interesting things about forums. All this time spent telling me stuff instead of finding the filing and seeing it for yourself. I had no desire to get people riled up, but there is no sense coming after me because you don't like what I have to say. Substance, not source.

Sam
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing. I provided my source, you're source is "the information is out there"

You know what you call people who always reference unseen information and say it ouy there?

Liars.
 
If you go on his website, in terms of trademarks it says

"The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

The example companies, organizations, products, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.

Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved."

See how it says "The name?" if he was able to trademark the design of a knife which again, is impossible he would prominently list it on his website under the trademarks section.

This, combined with the fact that he has a long page of fakers selling replica knives, saying that they "Some rip-off manufacturers are bold enough to actually put the Gil Hibben and/or United Cutlery trademarks on them."

Notice how he calls them out for using the trademark name.

And just to prove that you have no leg to stand on, I DID search the usPTO, and here is what we get for the Gil Hibben trademark. https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/gil-hibben-1415943/

A logo of "
The mark consists of the overall design and shape of a knife. The shading in the drawing is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The stippling is used to indicate 3-dimensional topography and is not part of the mark."

Nowhere does it mention any trademarking of a design. But he actually holds a second trademark! https://trademark.trademarkia.com/gil-hibben-87639936.html.

For his logo, saying Gil Hibben. It is impossible to trademark a design which imparts use onto an object. Keep ranting about the proof thats out there if you like, but you are, on all fronts, incorrect.
 
Wow guy, that's pretty bold for not even having the source information. You can post whatever you'd like, but they have a valid trademark (whether you believe it to be valid or not, I can't speak to how it was determined at the Patent and Trademark Office, that's not my job).

And they have been enforcing their trademark (a public filing) for probably since before you were born. You may want to settle down a bit. Strong words for only knowing half the story.

Sam:thumbsup:

Greenberg Woods said:
See, that's the thing. I provided my source, you're source is "the information is out there"

You know what you call people who always reference unseen information and say it ouy there?

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sam Wilson said:
Wow guy, that's pretty bold for not even having the source information. You can post whatever you'd like, but they have a valid trademark (whether you believe it to be valid or not, I can't speak to how it was determined at the Patent and Trademark Office, that's not my job).

And they have been enforcing their trademark (a public filing) for probably since before you were born. You may want to settle down a bit. Strong words for only knowing half the story.

Sam:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I just posted the source information.
 
You keep saying "impossible," yet they have it and have been enforcing it for years. Good luck with the reality check.

Sam:thumbsup:



Greenberg Woods said:
If you go on his website, in terms of trademarks it says

"The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

The example companies, organizations, products, people and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, person, or event is intended or should be inferred.

Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved."

See how it says "The name?" if he was able to trademark the design of a knife which again, is impossible he would prominently list it on his website under the trademarks section.

This, combined with the fact that he has a long page of fakers selling replica knives, saying that they "Some rip-off manufacturers are bold enough to actually put the Gil Hibben and/or United Cutlery trademarks on them."

Notice how he calls them out for using the trademark name.

And just to prove that you have no leg to stand on, I DID search the usPTO, and here is what we get for the Gil Hibben trademark. https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/gil-hibben-1415943/

A logo of "
The mark consists of the overall design and shape of a knife. The shading in the drawing is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The stippling is used to indicate 3-dimensional topography and is not part of the mark."

Nowhere does it mention any trademarking of a design. But he actually holds a second trademark! https://trademark.trademarkia.com/gil-hibben-87639936.html.

For his logo, saying Gil Hibben. It is impossible to trademark a design which imparts use onto an object. Keep ranting about the proof thats out there if you like, but you are, on all fronts, incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
Sam Wilson said:
Gil has more than just the one, bud.

Sam
Click to expand...

Wow, you must be fun at parties. Yeah. ill give up. No amount of evidence will shake you from your opinions, and you're welcome to them.

To anyone else, dont worry if you take inspiration from Gil Hibbens knife or anyone else, while there may be social damages associated with annoying other makers and profiting of their hard work, you are in little to absolutely no legal trouble as long as you do not use anyone's name, or copy their logo in such a way as consumers might be confused, you are perfectly safe. If you want to have faith in the evidence this guy believes exists somewhere in the ether, i have a bridge id love to sell you.
 
All that I ever said was that his RIII knife design is trademarked, and it is, whether you agree with the PTO or not. And you (meaning anyone) are not legally allowed to make an unauthorized copy of it, or you will have to deal with their trademark rights, which they have legally been enforcing probably since before you were born.

So what you say in the quoted text below is only partially correct. I am just trying to be helpful and direct here, I don't understand the acrimony. And you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a liar baselessly like that.

Sam:thumbsup:


Greenberg Woods said:
Wow, you must be fun at parties. Yeah. ill give up. No amount of evidence will shake you from your opinions, and you're welcome to them.

To anyone else, dont worry if you take inspiration from Gil Hibbens knife or anyone else, while there may be social damages associated with annoying other makers and profiting of their hard work, you are in little to absolutely no legal trouble as long as you do not use anyone's name, or copy their logo in such a way as consumers might be confused, you are perfectly safe. If you want to have faith in the evidence this guy believes exists somewhere in the ether, i have a bridge id love to sell you.
Click to expand...
 
You're not a liar. You're just ignorant.
You have your mind made up, and you won't be confused by facts.
Heck, since you and Gil are such big buddies, have him come here and explain it all to us.
 
Bill DeShivs said:
You're not a liar. You're just ignorant.
You have your mind made up, and you won't be confused by facts.
Click to expand...

OK guy, tell the Hibbens that. I'm sure they've been confused about it for the last 30 years or so, also. Wow, there are some bizarre reactions in this thread.

Sam
 
Bill DeShivs said:
You're not a liar. You're just ignorant.
You have your mind made up, and you won't be confused by facts.
Heck, since you and Gil are such big buddies, have him come here and explain it all to us.
Click to expand...

Since you added that after your original post I'll add this: I don't pretend to be anything I'm not, but I spoke to Linda about this very subject very recently, and she confirmed it. So why don't YOU explain to them how confused they are, sir.

I already know what the reply will be, so feel free to post it here and let the chips fall where they may.

Sam
 
Bill DeShivs Bill DeShivs I'll add this, since everyone was so quick to impugn my character and intelligence: If you do speak with them and they tell you the same thing they told me, you and the Greenberg Woods Greenberg Woods guy can edit your insults out of your posts and replace them with apologies, and I'll remove your insults from my quotes. Then we'll see who really has the integrity.

Sam:thumbsup:
 
Sam Wilson said:
Bill DeShivs Bill DeShivs I'll add this, since everyone was so quick to impugn my character and intelligence: If you do speak with them and they tell you the same thing they told me, you and the Greenberg Woods Greenberg Woods guy can edit your insults out of your posts and replace them with apologies, and I'll remove your insults from my quotes. Then we'll see who really has the integrity.

Sam:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You're right. I shouldnt call you a liar. That was unfair and rude of me. I do agree with that, and I apologize.

You are however still incorrect. no matter your instance, the USPTO did not make a single exception in there rules of what can and can not be trademarked for a single knifemaker. Thats not how it works. Your persistent belief that the proof exists but that it is up to find, and that if we are unable to find it that must speak to our inability rather than its non existence, there is nothing to be done for that.
 
Thank you, and I accept your apology. Consider that portion done, as far as I'm concerned.

As to the rest, all I can tell you is whether it should happen or not is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is, it did happen, they have an enforceable trademark, and have been doing just that for many years. I have seen the filing, and they have confirmed it.

So you can dispute it till the end of time, but it has been happening, legally. Don't know what else to say.

Sam:thumbsup:




Greenberg Woods said:
You're right. I shouldnt call you a liar. That was unfair and rude of me. I do agree with that, and I apologize.

You are however still incorrect. no matter your instance, the USPTO did not make a single exception in there rules of what can and can not be trademarked for a single knifemaker. Thats not how it works. Your persistent belief that the proof exists but that it is up to find, and that if we are unable to find it that must speak to our inability rather than its non existence, there is nothing to be done for that.
Click to expand...
 
OK, I let this run longer than it should. Thread closed.

You all are adults. Just walk away without comment after you have had your say in a thread. There is no need to continue an online argument when it is clear no one agrees.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top