san mai copyright ????????????

After all is said and done I don't think CS is trying to win or accomplish anything by this. Or stop anyone from using the term by following through with their goofy email to everyone.
It would be my guess that they're simply trying to cover some bases legally on another issue entirely by trying to show that they're defending their trademark.
You can trademark nearly anything, but if you don't use it and keep it current and solidified, you may risk losing it.
Just a guess.
 
Karl B. Andersen said:
After all is said and done I don't think CS is trying to win or accomplish anything by this. Or stop anyone from using the term by following through with their goofy email to everyone.
It would be my guess that they're simply trying to cover some bases legally on another issue entirely by trying to show that they're defending their trademark.
You can trademark nearly anything, but if you don't use it and keep it current and solidified, you may risk losing it.
Just a guess.
Click to expand...
I'd agree if they are actually trying to defend their trade mark "San Mai III".
But they aren't.
They are going after "San Mai" (without the 3 IIIs at the end) which isn't their trademark.
I hope a judge would see through that since many here don't.
 
Karl B. Andersen said:
After all is said and done I don't think CS is trying to win or accomplish anything by this. Or stop anyone from using the term by following through with their goofy email to everyone.
Click to expand...

I recently finished reading a book called "Contagious; why things catch on". It has some interesting things to say about online activity as it relates to marketing. I'm not sure how much of it applies here, but sometimes any online activity can be good for a company. i.e. Laphroaig's campaign where they intentionally spoke ill of their islay malt scotch. Or Rebecca Black's horrible self produced internet song "Friday", which has 93 million hits. This thread may not negatively impact Cold Steel at all.

My guess would be that if CS had any real concerns over their trademark, it is about search results. San Mai and the trademarked "San Mai" being discussed, I don't think are respected separately by search engines. This would not have been a concern when CS trademarked the name, but could become one now if many makers had more popular san mai blades on their websites, or their sites were ranked better than CS's. site was ranked. (that is just a guess, I don't work in the computer industry, nor pretend to understand it well)
 
My guess is Lynn watched Forged in Fire and everytime they mention "San Mai" he started screaming at the TV and decided to put everyone on notice.

But, what people noticed was he has no claim to "San Mai" and he simply is puffing up his chest trying to get people backed down and it did not work.
 
It is not about going after custom makers. He has no intention of taking anybody to court. It's about preserving his trademark. He MUST show that he is defending the TM in order for it not to be considered as "abandoned". He is doing it for a bigger fight, down the road. Perhaps FIF?... not sure. Maybe he's planning to squeeze a retraction out of them for free publicity?
 
Rick Marchand said:
It is not about going after custom makers. He has no intention of taking anybody to court. It's about preserving his trademark. He MUST show that he is defending the TM in order for it not to be considered as "abandoned". He is doing it for a bigger fight, down the road. Perhaps FIF?... not sure. Maybe he's planning to squeeze a retraction out of them for free publicity?
Click to expand...
But he isn't preserving his trade mark "San Mai III"
See the the 3 lines III?
He is going after
San Mai
which isn't his trademark thus its irelevant even in the future when he might need to show that he defended San Mai III, which he isn't doing by putting erroneous effort into San Mai.
Either he knows that and he's trying to fool a future judge but that wouldn't fly in my opinion or he's after the publicity.

It's like registering "Sandwich 68" and then going after all the people who use the word Sandwich. Going wrongly after them does nothing to show that I'm defending the "Sandwich 68" trade mark.
 
Jens Schuetz said:
But he isn't preserving his trade mark "San Mai III"
See the the 3 lines III?
He is going after
San Mai
which isn't his trademark thus its irelevant even in the future when he might need to show that he defended San Mai III, which he isn't doing by putting erroneous effort into San Mai.
Either he knows that and he's trying to fool a future judge but that wouldn't fly in my opinion or he's after the publicity.

It's like registering "Sandwich 68" and then going after all the people who use the word Sandwich. Going wrongly after them does nothing to show that I'm defending the "Sandwich 68" trade mark.
Click to expand...

He's got SAN MAI as well. Not sure if it specifically refers to the "Capitalized Logo" as it appears on their knives. They DO NOT have sole rights to the words, themselves... just the mark, as it appears on their knives... whether the 3 slashes are after it or not.

That's how I read it, anyway.
 
Rick Marchand said:
He's got SAN MAI as well. Not sure if it specifically refers to the "Capitalized Logo" as it appears on their knives. They DO NOT have sole rights to the words, themselves... just the mark, as it appears on their knives... whether the 3 slashes are after it or not.

That's how I read it, anyway.
Click to expand...

Where do you read that, please? We have been unable to find more than SAN MAI followed by "III" or the three horizontal "squiggly" lines. The three registrations located are linked above.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Where do you read that, please? We have been unable to find more than SAN MAI followed by "III" or the three horizontal "squiggly" lines. The three registrations located are linked above.
Click to expand...

Derp... you are right. I read the last one as just the capitalized "SAN MAI". Didn't catch the "wavey lines" thing for some reason. Why are there three trademarks that appear to be identical?
 
NJBillK said:
Take a look here folks...
http://www.coldsteel.com/san_mai.aspx
Click to expand...


Interesting

As far as I read the three trademarks, he has NO protection for


San Mai®




So, once again I have sent out letters kindly and gently asked a handful of makers to respect my trademark rights to the name San Mai®.
Click to expand...


What am I missing ?


And I don't see the "kindly and gently" it's an intimidation tactic and outright deceptive to claim the coverage when it's not there, or when there is no written use

For example on the verbal reference on FIF, how would anyone know how it was spelled.?
It clearly was used in reference to the technique, not any product.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Where did the U. of Arkansas get off threatening Gossman (IIRC) for using "Razorback" as his brand. There was zero chance of product confusion even if the U had the right to trademark the word Razorback. Hell, they claim the trademark on "Arkansas" and "Hogs."

"Razorback and wild hog are American colloquialisms, loosely applied to any type of feral domestic pig, wild boar or hybrid in North America; pure wild boar are sometimes called "Russian boar" or "Russian razorbacks". The term "razorback" has also appeared in Australia, to describe feral pigs there."

But it was a little craftsman against a big university. Bully.
Click to expand...

That was quite an ordeal. I did get a cease and desist letter from a law firm that represents the U. of Arkansas. They were ready to crucify me if I didn't cease and desist.
Scott
 
Liar, liar, pants on fire. All three registrations are for SAN MAI or SAN MAi PLUS three horizontal wavy lines or three vertical straight lines ("III").

His claim in the linked letter is arguably trademark fraud.
 
Last edited:
I agree. There seems to be a bit of disconnection here from what happened and what was perceived.



12345678910 said:
Interesting

As far as I read the three trademarks, he has NO protection for


San Mai®







What am I missing ?


And I don't see the "kindly and gently" it's an intimidation tactic and outright deceptive to claim the coverage when it's not there, or when there is no written use

For example on the verbal reference on FIF, how would anyone know how it was spelled.?
It clearly was used in reference to the technique, not any product.
Click to expand...
 
So, can I trademark "steel" and then send cease and desist orders to anyone using the term without acknowledging my trademark?

Lynn has come by my table at Blade twice while walking up and down the rows (not seeking out my table, just taking in the show). I'd be fine if he didn't walk by my table this year.

I do not make san mai nor own any SAN MAI III products. I guarantee that the latter shall remain true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top