Cold Steel V CRKT

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
LightGabler LLP
By: Glenn J. Dickinson
(State Bar #159753)
760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 300
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 248-7208
(805) 248-7209 (fax)
gdickinson@lightgablerlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 Cold Steel, Inc.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
11
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLD STEEL, INC., a
California corporation,
13
Case No. 2:15-CV-4166

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT for:
14
vs.
15
16
17
18
19
20
COLUMBIA RIVER KNIFE &

TOOL COMPANY, a business
entity, form unknown; GB II
CORPORATION, an Oregon
corporation, dba COLUMBIA
RIVER KNIFE & TOOL
COMPANY; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive.
1. False Advertising, Lanham Act

section 43
2. Unfair Competition, California
Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.
Demand for Jury Trial
Defendants.
21
22
23
Plaintiff Cold Steel, Inc. (Cold Steel) complains of Defendants
24
Columbia River Knife & Tool Company, GB II Corporation dba Columbia
25
River Knife & Tool Company and Does 1-10, and alleges as follows:
26
1.
This is an action for false advertising section 43(a) of the Lanham
27
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); and for violation of related California state law.
28
These claims address the false and misleading statements in Columbia River
COMPLAINT
Knife & Tools published advertising regarding the qualities and performance
of the companys folding knives.
2.
Columbia River Knife & Tool claims that locking mechanisms on
its folding knives convert these knives into virtual fixed blade knives. This is
a completely false claim. These knives cannot begin to match the strength of
a fixed blade.
3.
The claim that Columbia River Knife & Tool makes folding knives
that convert into virtual fixed blade knives is an empty advertising slogan.
The truth is that the locks on these knives will fail catastrophically when
10
significant pressure is applied. The knives perform worse than many other
11
comparably priced knives, and far worse even than lower cost knives
12
manufactured by Cold Steel.
13
4.
Cold Steel files this action to halt Columbia River Knife & Tools
14
practice of making blatantly false claims about the strength of the companys
15
knives, and to compel the company to pay out the damages and unlawful
16
profits it has earned by these dishonest tactics.

Parties
17
18
5.
Plaintiff Cold Steel, Inc. (Cold Steel) is a California corporation
19
with its principal place of business in Ventura, California, in the Central
20
District of California.
21
6.
On information and belief, defendant Columbia River Knife & Tool
22
Company is a business entity, form unknown, based in Oregon and doing
23
business in the Central District of California.
24
7.
On information and belief, GB II Corporation dba Columbia River
25
Knife & Tool Company is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of
26
business in Oregon, and doing business in the Central District of California.
27
28
8.
Defendants Columbia River Knife & Tool Company and GB II
Corporation dba Columbia River Knife & Tool Company are referred to
2
COMPLAINT
1
2
collectively as Columbia River.

9.
Defendants Doe 1 through 10 are persons responsible for Cold
Steels damages or otherwise answerable to Cold Steel for its claims. Cold
Steel does not know the true identities or capacities of these persons or how
in the conduct alleged and therefore sues these persons by fictitious names.
Cold Steel will amend this cross-complaint to allege the true identities of the
Doe cross-defendants when ascertained.
10.
The plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants
was acting as an agent, servant, employee, representative of or joint venturer
10
with the other defendants, or was acting under the direction and control of
11
these codefendants and within the course and scope of such agency,
12
service, employment or joint venture. The plaintiff is informed and believes
13
that, at all relevant times, the acts of the defendants, and each of them, were
14
authorized and ratified by their co-defendants.

Jurisdiction and Venue
15
16
11.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to
17
15 U.S.C. section 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. section 1338(a) and (b). Personal
18
jurisdiction in the Central District of California is proper, because Columbia
19
River conducts business and distributes products within the Central District of
20
California and throughout the United States. For example, according to
21
Columbia Rivers web site, the company has more than 20 authorized
22
dealers in the Central District of California.
23
consumers in the Central District of California purchase knives and other
24
items through the internet websites operated by Columbia River.
25
26
12.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1391(b)(2).
The Parties Business
27
28
On information and belief,
13.
Cold Steel manufactures and sells knives, edged weapons and

3
COMPLAINT
other items. Cold Steel sells its products through distributors and authorized
dealers in the United States and around the world. The Cold Steel dealers in
the United States principally are hunting and camping stores, gun stores, and
military and law enforcement supply stores. These dealers include national
retail chains such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas and Sportsmans
Warehouse. Cold Steel also sells knives through its website, and many of its
authorized dealers sell Cold Steel products through their websites as well.
8
9
14.
Columbia River primarily sells folding knives and fixed-blade
knives but also sells a few other items such as multi-function tools and
10
flashlights.
11
authorized dealers, including Big 5, The Sports Authority and REI.
12
15.
Columbia River also sells its knives through distributors and

Cold Steel and Columbia River are direct competitors.
Factual Allegations
13
14
16.
Cold Steel seeks redress for Columbia Rivers deliberate and
15
unlawful false and misleading representations regarding its folding knives
16
sold with one of three locking mechanisms, which are designated LAWKS,
17
AutoLAWKS and L.B.S.
18
marketed and sold by Columbia River based on representations that these
19
locking mechanisms convert the folding knives into virtual fixed blade
20
knives.
21
17.
Knives with these locking mechanisms are
A folding knife without a locking mechanism can be closed simply
22
by gripping the handle and applying pressure on the spine of the blade (the
23
back or nonsharpened edge).
24
sufficient to overcome the spring tension holding the knife open.
25
characteristic does not affect the performance of the knife when it is being
26
used in a manner that applies pressure directly on the blade, such as cutting
27
or whittling. However, it can become a serious safety issue if the knife is
28
being used to stab a hard surface or pry a resilient material, or if, while
A slight amount of pressure typically is
4
COMPLAINT
This
cutting, the users grip slips and the knife rotates in the hand, such that
pressure is then being applied to the side or spine of the blade. In any of
those circumstances, a nonlocking folder can snap shut on the users fingers,
inflicting a potentially serious injury.
18.
The locking mechanism on a folding knife is intended primarily to
prevent accidental closing in use.
between folding knives with locks and those without locks.
8
9
10
11
19.
This is the most important difference
For consumers seeking a folding knife with a locking mechanism,
the strength and reliability of the locking mechanism is material to the

consumers buying decision.
20.
Marketing claims about the strength and reliability of a folding
12
knifes locking mechanism refer directly to its resistance to accidental closing
13
while in use.
14
15
16
21.
Columbia River markets folding knives with the LAWKS locking
mechanism by making statements such as the following:

22.
Sliding the LAWKS lever forward assures that the folder is a
17
virtual fixed blade. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to accidentally release
18
the liner lock when the LAWKS lever is activated and if the blade pivot is
19
properly adjusted. . . .
20
Integrated into the design is the patented (1) LAWKS
21
safety, which effectively converts the [knife] into a virtual
22
fixed blade very reassuring when you are using your
23
knife for difficult and tiring tasks.
24
25
23.
Columbia River markets folding knives with the AutoLAWKS
locking mechanism by making statements such as the following:
26
The AutoLAWKS lever moves forward automatically
27
whenever the blade is opened and locked to assure that
28
the folder is a virtual fixed blade. It is very difficult, if not

5
COMPLAINT
impossible, to accidentally release the liner lock when the
AutoLAWKS lever is activated and if the blade pivot is
properly adjusted.
[The knife] locks automatically into the open position
courtesy of our patented AutoLAWKS safety that
creates a virtual fixed blade.
7
8
24.
Columbia River markets folding knives with the L.B.S. locking
mechanism by making statements such as the following:
When the blade is opened, locked and the L.B.S. is
10
actuated, the knife becomes a virtual fixed blade, and will
11
not accidentally fold while in use.
12
13
14
25.
The foregoing claims refer to the knives resistance to accidental
closing while in use.

26.
The foregoing claims refer to the ability of the knife to remain
15
open when being used to stab, chop, or pry an object in a manner that puts
16
pressure on the knife in a direction that would tend to make the blade close.
17
27.
The foregoing claims constitute representations that, when
18
pressure is applied to the knife in the open position while the lock is engaged,
19
the knife will have almost the same resistance to folding as would a fixed
20
blade knife.
21
28.
Columbia Rivers folding knives with the LAWKS, AutoLAWKS
22
and L.B.S. locking mechanisms are not remotely near the strength of a fixed
23
blade knife of comparable cost, or even one costing much less. The locking
24
mechanisms will fail when pressure is applied, which could cause the knife to
25
suddenly snap shut while being gripped in the users hand, potentially
26
causing a serious injury.
27
28
29.
Knives with the LAWKS, AutoLAWKS and L.B.S. locking
mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than comparably priced

6
COMPLAINT
1
2
fixed blade knives in general.

30.
mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than comparably priced
fixed blade knives manufactured by Columbia River.
31.
mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than lower priced fixed
blade knives in general.
8
9
10
11
32.
mechanisms exhibit far less resistance to folding than lower priced fixed
blade knives manufactured by Columbia River.
33.
The phrase a virtual fixed blade in the Columbia River
12
advertising is understood by consumers to mean very nearly as strong as a
13
fixed blade or almost exactly as strong as a fixed blade.
14
34.
The locking mechanism on any folding knife will fail if sufficient
15
pressure is applied to the handle while the blade is engaged in a surface.
16
When a locking mechanism fails, the knife tends to act like a folding knife
17
without a locking mechanism namely, the blade pivots where it connects
18
with the handle, and the blade tends to swing around into a closing position.
19
35.
Any fixed blade knife also will fail if sufficient pressure is applied
20
to the handle while the blade is engaged in a surface. However, unlike a
21
folding knife, when a fixed blade knife fails, it almost always snaps into two
22
pieces. When that happens, there is no tendency for the sharpened edge of
23
the blade to swing around and cut the users fingers. The failure of the lock
24
on a folding knife thus exposes the user to much greater risk of serious injury
25
than the failure of a fixed blade knife.
26
36.
Columbia Rivers claims that its folding knives operate as virtual
27
fixed blade[s] constitute false claims about the safety of its knives. These
28
statements are understood by consumers to mean that the user is exposed

7
COMPLAINT
to very nearly the same risk of injury when using the knife as when using a
fixed blade knife.
37.
In fact, because of a folding blades tendency to swing closed
upon failure of the lock, rather than simply breaking free of the handle, users
are exposed to a much higher risk of injury when using Columbia Rivers
folding knives, as compared to a fixed blade knife.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trademark Infringement, Lanham Act Section 32, 15 U.S.C. 1114)
9
10
11
38.
Cold
Steel
incorporates
by reference the
allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint.

39.
The defendants have made and distributed in interstate
12
commerce and in this District advertisements that contain false and
13
misleading statements of fact regarding their products. These advertisements
14
contain actual misstatements and/or misleading statements or failures to
15
disclose, including without limitation the statements that certain locking
16
mechanisms convert a Columbia River knife into a virtual fixed blade.
17
40.
These statements actually deceive, or have a tendency to
18
deceive, a substantial segment of Columbia Rivers customers and potential
19
customers. This deception is material in that it concerns an inherent quality or
20
characteristic of Columbia Rivers products and is likely to influence the
21
purchasing decisions of Columbia Rivers customers.
22
23
24
25
26
41.
The defendants false and misleading advertising statements and
omissions injure both consumers and Cold Steel.

42.
The defendants false and misleading advertising statements and
omissions violate section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

43.
The defendants have caused, and will continue to cause,
27
immediate and irreparable injury to Cold Steel, for which there is no adequate
28
remedy at law. Cold Steel is therefore entitled to an injunction under 15

8
COMPLAINT
U.S.C. section 1116 restraining the defendants and their agents, employees,
representatives and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in
future acts of false advertising and ordering removal of all of the defendants
false advertisements.
44.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117, Cold Steel is further entitled
to recover from Columbia River the damages sustained by Cold Steel as a
result of the defendants acts in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a). Cold
Steel is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary
damages it has sustained by reason of the defendants acts.
10
45.
11
to recover from the defendants the gains, profits and advantages that the
12
defendants have obtained as a result of their acts in violation of 15 U.S.C.
13
section 1125(a). Cold Steel is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of
14
the gains, profits and advantages the defendants have obtained by reason of
15
their acts.
16
46.
17
to recover the costs of this action. Cold Steel is informed and believes, and
18
on that basis alleges, that the defendants conduct was undertaken willfully
19
and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake or deception, making this
20
an exceptional case entitling Cold Steel to recover additional damages and
21
reasonable attorneys fees.
22
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23
(Unfair Competition,
24
California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.)
25
26
27
28
47.
Cold
Steel
incorporates
by reference the
allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint.

48.
The foregoing actions of the defendants involve conduct that is
unlawful, fraudulent and unfair under California and federal law.

9
COMPLAINT
49.
The defendants acts, as set forth above, have caused irreparable
injury to Cold Steel. The injury to Cold Steel is and continues to be ongoing
and irreparable.
compensate Cold Steel for its injuries, and Cold Steel lacks an adequate
remedy at law.
50.
An award of monetary damages alone cannot fully
Cold Steel is entitled to a permanent injunction against the
defendants, and to restitution of all amounts unlawfully obtained by the
defendants through the foregoing conduct.
9
10
51.
Cold Steel is entitled to restitution of all amounts unlawfully
obtained by Columbia River as a result of its wrongful conduct.

Prayer
11
12
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
13
1.
That the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees,
14
and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them
15
who receive actual notice of the court's order by personal service or
16
otherwise, be permanently enjoined from making any false or misleading
17
statements regarding their folding knives, including without limitation the
18
claims that the defendants folding knives behave like a virtual fixed blade;
19
2.
That the defendants, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. section
20
1116(a), be directed to file with the Court and serve upon Cold Steel, within
21
30 days after service of the permanent injunction, a report in writing under
22
oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the defendants
23
have complied with the permanent injunction;
24
25
26
27
28
3.
That Cold Steel recover its actual damages sustained as a result
of the defendants wrongful actions;

4.
That Cold Steel recover the defendants profits made as a result
of the defendants wrongful actions;

5.
That Cold Steel recover three times the defendants profits made
10
COMPLAINT
as a result of the defendants wrongful actions or three times Cold Steels
damages, whichever is greater;
6.
That this case be deemed an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C.
sections 1117(a) and (b) and that the defendants be deemed liable for and
ordered to reimburse Cold Steel for its reasonable attorneys' fees;
6
7
7.
That Cold Steel be awarded exemplary damages for the
defendants willful and intentional acts;
8.
That Cold Steel recover its costs of court; and
9.
That Cold Steel recover such further relief to which it may be
10
entitled.
11
12
Dated: June 3, 2015
LightGabler LLP
13
14
15
By:
Glenn J. Dickinson
Cold Steel, Inc.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT
Demand for Jury Trial
The plaintiff demands a jury trial of the triable issues in this action.
3
4
Dated: June 3, 2015
LightGabler LLP
5
6
7
By:
Glenn J. Dickinson
Cold Steel, Inc.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
COMPLAINT

Cold Steel V CRKT

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cold Steel V CRKT

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:15-CV-4166

COLUMBIA RIVER KNIFE &

1. False Advertising, Lanham Act

Plaintiff Cold Steel, Inc. (Cold Steel) complains of Defendants

Columbia River Knife & Tool Company, GB II Corporation dba Columbia

This is an action for false advertising section 43(a) of the Lanham

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2

of the companys folding knives.

Columbia River Knife & Tool claims that locking mechanisms on

manufactured by Cold Steel.

profits it has earned by these dishonest tactics.

Plaintiff Cold Steel, Inc. (Cold Steel) is a California corporation

with its principal place of business in Ventura, California, in the Central

On information and belief, defendant Columbia River Knife & Tool

Company is a business entity, form unknown, based in Oregon and doing

business in the Central District of California.

On information and belief, GB II Corporation dba Columbia River

business in Oregon, and doing business in the Central District of California.

Defendants Columbia River Knife & Tool Company and GB II

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:3

collectively as Columbia River.

Defendants Doe 1 through 10 are persons responsible for Cold

Doe cross-defendants when ascertained.

The plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants

was acting as an agent, servant, employee, representative of or joint venturer

service, employment or joint venture. The plaintiff is informed and believes

authorized and ratified by their co-defendants.

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to

jurisdiction in the Central District of California is proper, because Columbia

California and throughout the United States. For example, according to

dealers in the Central District of California.

consumers in the Central District of California purchase knives and other

items through the internet websites operated by Columbia River.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

On information and belief,

Cold Steel manufactures and sells knives, edged weapons and

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:4

retail chains such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas and Sportsmans

Columbia River primarily sells folding knives and fixed-blade

authorized dealers, including Big 5, The Sports Authority and REI.

Columbia River also sells its knives through distributors and

Cold Steel seeks redress for Columbia Rivers deliberate and

unlawful false and misleading representations regarding its folding knives

AutoLAWKS and L.B.S.

marketed and sold by Columbia River based on representations that these

Knives with these locking mechanisms are

A folding knife without a locking mechanism can be closed simply

back or nonsharpened edge).

sufficient to overcome the spring tension holding the knife open.

or whittling. However, it can become a serious safety issue if the knife is

A slight amount of pressure typically is

Case 2:15-cv-04166-AB-PJW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:5

inflicting a potentially serious injury.

The locking mechanism on a folding knife is intended primarily to

prevent accidental closing in use.

between folding knives with locks and those without locks.

This is the most important difference

For consumers seeking a folding knife with a locking mechanism,

the strength and reliability of the locking mechanism is material to the