Why does the U.S. Military allow their logos on so many junk knives?

[shane45-1911]

The military doesn't want to buy a 300 dollar fixed blade for the countless people in the ranks
They will be used as tools. Last bayonet charge was in 2003, they will likely not be used as a weapon
So the military powers that be decided to buy knives made of Reynolds wrap

Too bad we can't be known as the military that uses the ka-bar usmc
Along the lines people got cheap
And the value of a person was adjusted accordingly

You don't want to outfit a marine with an excellent knife just to be shot by some kid in the middle east.
All that money is therefore gone

You are missing the point.

It is not about whether or not the military wants to use any given knife - it is about why reputable companies are not putting the logos/trademarks on their knives if it is so easy to get on the approved list.

Of course no grunt is going to carry a several hundred dollar blade, but wouldn't all the armchair commandos want an "official" USMC Sebenza, for example? Or how about the Seal Team 6 Carothers special edition? Certainly they would want the Spyderco Paramilitary Delta Force sprint run.

Again, there are still some pieces missing to this puzzle. If it is so easy to get the licensing approval and BudK can do it and afford it, you would think that ALL the major companies would want to get on that ride, no?

 

[The Grendels]

The wannabe market is pretty big, so having the 'Merican military attached to anything makes some people jump at it. Same goes with backpacks and other things that were built by the lowest and most corrupt bidder that a certain type of consumer will swear by. It's why having a handgun contract with the US military is pure gold, because of the civilian sales based on people who like to pretend. They're not typically weighing pros and cons of a model, so much as being caught up by patriotic camo feel of it all. I love that Ka-Bar made the Space Bar, as a Space Force fixed blade, because it's practically trolling this market, but doing it in such a way that people will also buy it ironically like hot cakes. Well done, Ka-Bar.

Most soldiers have pretty terrible taste in knives, leaning towards something half-serrated, until they can get on an elusive knife sharpening course... They want something cheap enough that they won't cry when it gets lost or abused. That and spending a ton of cash on a knife cuts into their beer money. There were always a few guys who carried knives and a lot of people knew who they were, for when they needed to cut some paracord. If someone did have something shiny and expensive if they had any brains they weren't going to mention it to anyone. Guys tended to talk guns a hell of a lot more than knives (which was extremely rare), because guns were very important tools of the trade, the same way an electrician would talk about drills. Other than the occasional "can I used that for a second", my conversations about knives over a period of 6 years were a couple inquiries about whether I should be carrying that (especially the machete), someone asking everyone if anyone has seen the knife they dropped, me teaching my section how to throw knives (not end over end throw with the bayonet) at trees to kill some time when we were backed up a long time waiting for our turn on a range due to some scheduling screw up, another time teaching a pal from another company to throw knives but getting chewed out by some admin type because we were throwing knives inside the Mess and drunk, and exactly one young private asking me what knives I thought were best to carry in the field. I honestly had a lot more conversations about shovels than knives.

 

[ShaiHulud]

Here is a link to the official USMC website. If you scroll down to "Official USMC Licensees" and click "click here" you can download the entire 2022 list of licensees.

Commercial Use

United Cutlery is number 267 on that list. Unfortunately I can only access the list for a few seconds before Microsoft freezes it and says I need to accept some kid of software to continue, but screw that. So this picture of the list, with United Cutlery on the left side of the screen, is the best I can offer.

Of course people can always download the list for themselves if they want.

Using a united cutlery knife should come with user-end agreement

You are missing the point.

It is not about whether or not the military wants to use any given knife - it is about why reputable companies are not putting the logos/trademarks on their knives if it is so easy to get on the approved list.

Of course no grunt is going to carry a several hundred dollar blade, but wouldn't all the armchair commandos want an "official" USMC Sebenza, for example?

Again, there are still some pieces missing to this puzzle. If it is so easy to get the licensing approval and BudK can do it and afford it, you would think that ALL the major companies would want to get on that ride, no?

I can see your point

 

[navman]

"allow" is misleading. The US military emblems are public domain.

 

[killgar]

Using a united cutlery knife should come with user-end agreement

Older ones were good quality. I have an old United boot knife that survived my intentional attempts to break it.

As for their more recent offerings, I wouldn't put as much faith in them.

Two of my United boot knives. The bottom one is a "hybrid", I wanted a larger/longer handle so I replaced the original with a handle for a SOG Desert Dagger (bought from a friend). When I first bought that knife I wanted to see how tough it was, and how much I could depend on it, so I repeatedly pounded the tip a half inch into wood, and pried it out sideways (not edge-ways), and then I removed the handle, laid the tang across two pieces of metal, and repeatedly banged on the center of the tang with a hammer. The knife survived without any damage, and I was satisfied with it's toughness.

I wouldn't try that with a current United boot knife.

 

[shane45-1911]

"allow" is misleading. The US military emblems are public domain.

Not according to all the information provided in this thread. They are trademarked, and you need DoD licensing to reproduce them commercially.

 

[killgar]

"allow" is misleading. The US military emblems are public domain.

According the the USMC licensing agreement linked in post #33, from the official USMC website, all USMC logos and insignia (globe, anchor, coat of arms, eagle, etc) are trademark property of the USMC.

Which is probably a good thing. I'd hate to think that anyone could use such insignia any way they wanted, and imply the involvement or endorsement of the US military. It's already bad enough that such insignia appear on crappy knives.

 

[shane45-1911]

Which is probably a good thing. I'd hate to think that anyone could use such insignia any way they wanted, and imply the involvement or endorsement of the US military.

Yet apparently, anyone (BudK) can use such insignias with the implied endorsement. With the proper license, of course. Whatever that amounts to with regards to fees, royalties, etc.

Sounds like the USMC doesn't mind whoring-out their insignias, as long as there is a buck to be made.

Still doesn't explain why REPUTABLE companies aren't doing the same with QUALITY gear.

 

[killgar]

Yet apparently, anyone (BudK) can use such insignias with the implied endorsement. With the proper license, of course. Whatever that amounts to with regards to fees, royalties, etc.

Yeah, I added the part about crappy knives .

I actually commented on this very topic in this thread below way back in 2012 .

I NEED HElP ID ING AND KNIFE

i have this knife that i bought at a swapmeet awhile back and i wanted to know what kind of knife it is. it is some type of Marine knife but i would like to get a specific name. it is a spring loaded knife, with brown camo on it,a marine corps symbol, and a belt clip on it. if you can please...

www.bladeforums.com

 

[Uncle Buckmaster]

Yet apparently, anyone (BudK) can use such insignias with the implied endorsement. With the proper license, of course. Whatever that amounts to with regards to fees, royalties, etc.

Sounds like the USMC doesn't mind whoring-out their insignias, as long as there is a buck to be made.

Still doesn't explain why REPUTABLE companies aren't doing the same with QUALITY gear.

I presume that reputable companies feel that their products can stand up well enough on their own, and that the licensing fees wouldn't result in a worthwhile boost in sales.

Besides, many reputable knife companies such as Buck, Kabar, and Ontario already have storied past relationships with the U.S. Military that they're free to mention in advertisements to promote their knives without need of any license or royalty fees, so why pay licensing fees when everybody knows you make quality knives and that at some point in time you were contracted by the U.S. Military to produce knives for them?

 

[shane45-1911]

I presume that reputable companies feel that their products can stand up well enough on their own, and that the licensing fees wouldn't result in a worthwhile boost in sales.

Besides, many reputable knife companies such as Buck, Kabar, and Ontario already have storied past relationships with the U.S. Military that they're free to mention in advertisements to promote their knives without need of any license or royalty fees, so why pay licensing fees when everybody knows you make quality knives and that at some point in time you were contracted by the U.S. Military to produce knives for them?

Not bad. I'm willing to accept this as the reason unless someone comes up with something better.

 

[greater]

Why does the U.S. Military allow their logos on so many junk knives?​

Ooooo oooo I know the answer to that. It's because they make money off of it.

 

[000Robert]

The military doesn't want to buy a 300 dollar fixed blade for the countless people in the ranks
They will be used as tools. Last bayonet charge was in 2003, they will likely not be used as a weapon
So the military powers that be decided to buy knives made of Reynolds wrap

Too bad we can't be known as the military that uses the ka-bar usmc
Along the lines people got cheap
And the value of a person was adjusted accordingly

You don't want to outfit a marine with an excellent knife just to be shot by some kid in the middle east.
All that money is therefore gone

Since when has the government cared about wasting money?

 

[ShaiHulud]

Older ones were good quality. I have an old United boot knife that survived my intentional attempts to break it.

As for their more recent offerings, I wouldn't put as much faith in them.

Two of my United boot knives. The bottom one is a "hybrid", I wanted a larger/longer handle so I replaced the original with a handle for a SOG Desert Dagger (bought from a friend). When I first bought that knife I wanted to see how tough it was, and how much I could depend on it, so I repeatedly pounded the tip a half inch into wood, and pried it out sideways (not edge-ways), and then I removed the handle, laid the tang across two pieces of metal, and repeatedly banged on the center of the tang with a hammer. The knife survived without any damage, and I was satisfied with it's toughness.

I wouldn't try that with a current United boot knife.

Unfortunately lots of companies were good in their early days, couldn't keep it up though

 

[TC]

The US military is actually VERY protective of it's trademarks.

In 2018 the Army sued a liquor store owner in New York for using the name "Black Knights" in the name of his store. The West Point football team is called the Black Knights, and the Army owns that name. The Army sued, and the store owner chose to change the name.

If the Army was willing to go through all that trouble over the name of the West Point football team, I imagine they wouldn't hesitate to go after any US based company that used it's actual name and/or logos without permission.

And on that point, in 2014 the Army sued a US based clothing manufacturer for using Army trademarks after permission had been withdrawn. The Army spent 7 years in court fighting this case, and finally won in 2021.

I don't doubt that if BudK, a US based company, and not exactly an obscure company, were using US military trademarks without permission, that they would hear about it from the US Attorneys Office.

Don't mess with US military trademarks.

I've also seen cases where former and active duty military personnel were ordered to stop using military names and insignia from the branches they served in on products they were producing for sale.

Yep, I once sued, or threatened to sue, one Eric Clapton, musician, over a rather trivial trademark matter concerning class 25 goods, on behest of a client of course. I had no personal issues with the man, but I still have a copy of the settlement cheque signed by his Guitar Greatness himself. Small change, but a nice souvenir. That is to say, trademark rights are disregarded at your own peril.

 

[Uncle Buckmaster]

United States Trademark/Copyright Laws are sort of messed up in the way that if the holder fails to legally respond to infringements, then it can be considered null/void and defaults into the public domain.

 

[King of the Cheese]

The US military is actually VERY protective of it's trademarks.

In 2018 the Army sued a liquor store owner in New York for using the name "Black Knights" in the name of his store. The West Point football team is called the Black Knights, and the Army owns that name. The Army sued, and the store owner chose to change the name.

If the Army was willing to go through all that trouble over the name of the West Point football team, I imagine they wouldn't hesitate to go after any US based company that used it's actual name and/or logos without permission.

And on that point, in 2014 the Army sued a US based clothing manufacturer for using Army trademarks after permission had been withdrawn. The Army spent 7 years in court fighting this case, and finally won in 2021.

I don't doubt that if BudK, a US based company, and not exactly an obscure company, were using US military trademarks without permission, that they would hear about it from the US Attorneys Office.

Don't mess with US military trademarks.

I've also seen cases where former and active duty military personnel were ordered to stop using military names and insignia from the branches they served in on products they were producing for sale.

There was a little more to it than the name “Black Knights”. The store owner set up cardboard cutouts of cadets in uniform and had an atmosphere and theme for West Point. To be clear, it wasn’t specifically and solely because the words “Black Knights” were used. The store was also located in close proximity to the academy and I’m sure that pissed off a lot of people. The West Point administration sent four cease and desist letters before the owner changed the name.

If we use this as an example, a few things to keep in mind:
1.) The store associated the branding of a prestigious military academy with the sale of alcohol.
2.) The store name was to imply a connection to the academy mascot.
3.) The store had tacky WP branding themes all over the store.
4.) They ignored several cease and desist letters.

So this isn’t the best example in my opinion, as it isn’t the same as slapping “US Army” on a pocket knife that maybe a handful of people would ever see and doesn’t associate the brand with anything disreputable or damaging to society.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

Still leaves me scratching my head that if - BIG IF - BudK got the necessary approvals, why don't any other bona-fide AMERICAN (as in Made in USA) makers or manufacturers have it, and offer quality USA made licensed blades that have a chance of being a legitimate consideration for use by the Marines - or at least worthy of the USMC trademarks???

Seems like anyone can get it, if BudK can. This sounds like something that would have been right up Mick and Ernie's alley as well. Does Kabar or Ontario or Chris Reeve, etc. have the licensing approval?

Why am I only seeing so much junk with trademarks, if it is so easy to get? Certainly Benchmade/Spyderco could afford the licensing if BudK could.

There's something missing here.....

I can think of a reason or two why Mick wouldn't (shouldn't) even bother applying for a license...
As far as more reputable US knifemakers, they don't really need the help moving product. CRK, Spyderco and Benchmade have their retail production sold as fast as they can make the knives. Programs like Spyderco's OpFocus discount are going to generate more sales than any licensing deal is likely to

I presume that reputable companies feel that their products can stand up well enough on their own, and that the licensing fees wouldn't result in a worthwhile boost in sales.

Besides, many reputable knife companies such as Buck, Kabar, and Ontario already have storied past relationships with the U.S. Military that they're free to mention in advertisements to promote their knives without need of any license or royalty fees, so why pay licensing fees when everybody knows you make quality knives and that at some point in time you were contracted by the U.S. Military to produce knives for them?

Case, KA-BAR and Ontario Knife Co. all have licensing deals with USMC (I didn't see Buck). You can't use any of their trademarks in your advertising, including USMC® MARINE® MARINES® U.S. MARINE® U.S. MARINES® MARINE CORPS® U.S. MARINE CORPS® UNITED STATES MARINE® UNITED STATES MARINES® UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS®, without a license (and the associated 2.5% royalty for US-made products). A more complete list is linked below...

"allow" is misleading. The US military emblems are public domain.

This is laughably wrong: https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/134/USMC Content Guide 2021_1.pdf

 

[Silent H]

There was a little more to it than the name “Black Knights”. The store owner set up cardboard cutouts of cadets in uniform and had an atmosphere and theme for West Point. To be clear, it wasn’t specifically and solely because the words “Black Knights” were used. The store was also located in close proximity to the academy and I’m sure that pissed off a lot of people. The West Point administration sent four cease and desist letters before the owner changed the name.

If we use this as an example, a few things to keep in mind:
1.) The store associated the branding of a prestigious military academy with the sale of alcohol.
2.) The store name was to imply a connection to the academy mascot.
3.) The store had tacky WP branding themes all over the store.
4.) They ignored several cease and desist letters.

So this isn’t the best example in my opinion, as it isn’t the same as slapping “US Army” on a pocket knife that maybe a handful of people would ever see and doesn’t associate the brand with anything disreputable or damaging to society.

I don't know anything of that case, but it's easy to see how Army could view a liquor store using their branding as "damaging"

The army also got into a legal battle with the Vegas Golden Knights NHL team over their use of the name "Golden Knights" which is also the name of the Army's parachute demonstration team: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...-with-nhl-golden-knights-over-name-trademark/

I presume that reputable companies feel that their products can stand up well enough on their own, and that the licensing fees wouldn't result in a worthwhile boost in sales.

Besides, many reputable knife companies such as Buck, Kabar, and Ontario already have storied past relationships with the U.S. Military that they're free to mention in advertisements to promote their knives without need of any license or royalty fees, so why pay licensing fees when everybody knows you make quality knives and that at some point in time you were contracted by the U.S. Military to produce knives for them?

This is absolutely the right answer. And to the ones asking "Why aren't good brands licensing these logos?" I'll point you to the following knives, which were officially licensed: https://www.bladehq.com/?search=protech+army

 

[TheEdge01]