Case told David Yellowhorse he couldn't customize their knives anymore

Status
Not open for further replies.
silenthunterstudios

silenthunterstudios

Slipjoint Addict
Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
20,020
David Yellowhorse, famous knife maker known for his customized Buck knives, was informed by Case that he could not customize anymore Case knives without first paying them a fee to do so.

I am not sure why Case would do this, I am certain David would be able to fight this in court, but I am not the one to make the decision to spend money on court fees and lawyers to fight Zippo's lawyers.

This was posted on David's personal Facebook page. David said he decided to just comply with their request, and cease customizing all Case knives.

Case should concern themselves with creating quality knives. The only knives of theirs that I would care to use are the Bose collaborations and their CV models. All the other SS versions seem to be wall hangers, sometimes garish at that.

I am still looking at getting the new Bose yearly collaboration, and hope to get a Tribal Lock sometime this year, but crap like this really makes me mad. Just ask David to let the consumer know that his work violates Case's warranty. Sounds stupid to me, but absolves them of any liability. Instead they have really goofy looking covers and "upgrades" that look like a little kid went nuts with the glitter.

I've never owned one of Davids knives, I am not a fan of the 110, but I love Davids "upgrades" to it, as well as the Buck slipjoints I've seen.
 
A Yellowhorse/GEC 72, or 42, or..............................................
 
knifeswapper said:
Once David or his customer owns a Case knife - I can't imagine them thinking they have any right to what happens to it. That would be like Craftsmen saying you can't etch your initials on your pair of Craftsmen pliers...
Click to expand...
No doubt. They can make it difficult to get certain models, price considerations, and especially pressure authorized dealers from carrying his work.

However, in today's age of social media he shouldn't have a problem selling his designs. It sure is strange because customizers tend to help the company whose products they work on, think cars.
 
knifeswapper said:
Once David or his customer owns a Case knife - I can't imagine them thinking they have any right to what happens to it. That would be like Craftsmen saying you can't etch your initials on your pair of Craftsmen pliers...
Click to expand...

Chris Reeve did the same thing to Butch Vallotton, with the same result :(

~Chip
 
Case did the same thing several years ago to a disabled man in Atlanta that had a side business and modest income from customizing their knives.
I think the "Painted Pony" people have had similar notifications.
 
Unless the customizer says something that violates copyright or other rights owned by CASE, CASE has absolutely no legal standing in this matter. For instance, does he include CASE paperwork with his knives that show warranty info, etc.? That could be the problem. I put a different set of gauges in my '79 pickup. Now I am worried.
 
I am a knife addict and really like Case knives so I will never boycott them so maybe this will express what I feel about this.
5152.gif
 
Last edited:
One post edited for content.
 
Case/Zippo does not own any product that leaves the factory warehouse.
They do not stock any distributor or store on consignment.
Once their product leaves the factory, they have no say on what the owner does with it.
 
I think this is the result of over-zealous brand protecting. Thing of the times I guess.
 
but once you sell something its no longer yours to dictate what happens to it? people have customized rolexes for example. sure you void your warranty and rolex wont touch it unless you can return it to stock specs. i guess he can do queen stuff again. i have a beautiful yellowhorse queen swing guard that reminds me of my bowling ball.
 
mrknife mrknife companies have trademark and intellectual property rights. Here is a an excerpt from the article that I linked

Trademark Infringement and the First Sale Doctrine


Trademark infringement claims can be brought against a party that uses a trademarked name, logo or slogan in connection with a sale that has not been authorized by the original product manufacturer. Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. As with exhaustion of patent rights, though, the trademark owner generally loses its right to enforce the trademark after the “first sale” by the manufacturer; the “first sale doctrine” holds that someone who purchases a branded product generally has the right to resell that product so long as the product is in the same condition as when it was purchased.[2]


There is an exception to the “first sale doctrine,” though, known as the “material difference exception”: If some aspect of the unauthorized product purchased by the consumer differs materially from a product purchased from an authorized reseller, the trademark right is not exhausted.[3] This “material difference” can be a physical difference, such as when the product has been refurbished with non-original parts, or where packaging has been altered through removal of bar codes and other tracking information.[4] Or the difference can be in some form of associated service or warranty that would come with an authorized purchase of the product.[5] Original product manufacturers have had the most success in proving the “material difference” exception where (1) the product is not covered by a warranty unless purchased by an authorized reseller, (2) customer service is not available for the product, or (3) labeling and/or packaging (such as warning labels) have been altered or removed in the re-sold product.[6]


In addition to the “material difference exception,” some jurisdictions, such as New York and California, have found a “quality control exception” where a brand owner can establish that the quality control standards of the unauthorized reseller are substantially lower than the original manufacturer and/or authorized resellers, and therefore the brand owner’s reputation for quality is being undermined by the unauthorized resales.[7] For instance, the sale of expired cosmetic products in violation of the brand owner’s quality control standards was found to constitute trademark infringement despite the first sale doctrine.[8]


Copyright Infringement


The internet has made it easy for an unauthorized reseller to copy product images as well as product descriptions, specifications, data sheets, etc. from a brand owner’s website, in order to advertise and sell branded products over the internet. This copying may give rise to a claim for copyright infringement, i.e., the unauthorized copying of images or written work protected by a copyright registration.[9]


Like with trademark claims, though, the “first sale doctrine” may be a defense to claims of copyright infringement that seek to recover on the basis of resales of copyrighted materials, e.g., books or photographs.[10] However, where the unauthorized reseller uses copyrighted materials (e.g., images, verbatim product descriptions and data sheets) that do not constitute the product, but are used in promoting the product, a claim may lie — the claim is not a claim based on the sale of a copyrighted work, but rather the use of copyrighted materials in offering the product for sale. Damages for copyright infringement may include actual damages and any wrongful profits earned by the infringer, and statutory penalties. In addition, the infringer may be enjoined from any further use of the copyrighted material.


Unfair Competition


If the unauthorized reseller utilizes false and/or misleading statements in its online advertising, the brand owner may have a legal claim for unfair competition.[11] Section 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act prohibits sales practices that are likely to cause a consumer to be misled as to the origin of goods and/or the nature or characteristics of a product. Likewise, states such as California and New York have laws that preclude any unfair, untrue or misleading advertisement.[12] And states such as California have specific “gray market” laws that require product resellers offering unauthorized, imported consumer goods that are not covered by warranties to clearly mark on the package that the products are not covered.[13] Accordingly, if the unauthorized retailer falsely states or suggests that it is an authorized retailer, and/or that its products are covered by the manufacturer’s warranty when they are not, the unauthorized reseller may be liable under an unfair competition or false advertising theory.
Click to expand...
 
supratentorial said:
mrknife mrknife companies have trademark and intellectual property rights. Here is a an excerpt from the article that I linked
Click to expand...

fair deuce, i just hope this doesnt eventually extend to others who not as big time, cause there is a bunch of forum members who do love to customize their knives a bit.
 
It's very short sighted. If Mercedes-Benz and Chevrolet acted the same there would be no AMG or Yenko's to drive. Not to mention Shelby Mustangs!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top